On April 3, at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's West Coast Retreat in Palos Verdes, California, I debated Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser on the prospects for reform in Islam. Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness, was moderating. Here is Nidra Poller's analysis of the debate: "Islam : The Good The True The Beautiful," from Red County, May 14:
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is handsome, youthful, smooth, urbane, soft-spoken, the very image of the civilized man. A perfect mixture of the M.D. and the naval officer, he comes across as sincere and convincing. This makes it all the more puzzling to observe that, in this debate with Robert Spencer, he reacted as if guided by the harsh Islamic doctrine he claims can be sidestepped in the short term and ultimately reformed. Dr. Jasser’s hostility was couched in polite terms and expressed without snarls. His irrationality was hidden behind reasonable words. He was genuinely sincere and authentically deceiving all in the same breath. He used outworn arguments, false comparisons flawed reasoning and, when all else failed, adopted a supercilious attitude to weaken his adversary.Moderator Andrew McCarthy framed the debate with candor: we have been able to count on a helping hand from “moderate Muslims” in our combat against terrorism. Can we therefore claim there is such a thing as moderate Islam? If not, what can we do about it? We don’t want to alienate patriotic Muslims who came to our country because they don’t want to live under shariah, but…
Dr. Jasser opened the debate with a cascade of questionable analyses: If there is no moderate Islam how did Muslims turn out to be moderate? By accident? True, Islamic theologians haven’t modernized, but there is a moderate Islam.
Pleading for a rigorous historical approach, Zuhdi Jasser asks: if Islam taught hatred and violence, would the world exist as it does today? He argues that radical Islam is a 20th century phenomenon, claims theology was ossified under the Ottoman Empire after 6 or 700 years of moderation, and concludes that we have to find a way to get liberalism into Islam. Otherwise how can he raise his children as Muslim?
Robert Spencer’s response went to the crux of the matter: Islam cannot be defined by you or me, it is defined by scripture and theology. Reform must tackle the Koran. And, yes, the world we live in is the one in which Islam taught violence.
Zuhdi Jasser’s comeback was quite stunning. “Listening to Robert reminds me of when I was chief resident at the naval hospital…doctors with great board scores who couldn’t tell when a patient was sick [sic] or ill.” It gets worse. Not only is Robert a sort of stubborn bookworm, he’s not even a Muslim. You study a religion by the people who practice it, says the former chief resident, not by doctrine. He concludes this round with the Al Andalus whopper-- 13th century Spain, a golden age for Judaism, Maimonides and all that. Not, of course, he hastens to add, golden compared to our modern democracies. “I wouldn’t want to live in 13th Century Spain but, compared to Europe…”
I’m skeptical about the doctors too smart to treat a patient. And I can’t believe that Jasser doesn’t know that Maimonides fled Ishmaelite persecution. (Spencer would later correct him on that point without making a dent in the doctor’s carapace.) Dr. Andrew Bostom documents the history of virtually uninterrupted Islamic persecution of Jews from the earliest times to the present in his Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. L’Exil au Maghreb, by Paul Fenton and David Littman, covers “only” the persecution of Jews in the Maghreb from the 12th to the 20th century, in 800 blood-curdling pages of original documents. After reading those volumes I no longer believe that life was worse for Jews in Europe than in Muslim lands.
The myth of the “golden age of al Andalus” is a sorry excuse for historical perspective, but disqualifying Spencer because he is not Muslim reaches into an ancestral past when infidels were not allowed to read the Koran. In a further attempt to separate doctrine from the living faith, Jasser exposes his ignorance of Judaism and Christianity, asking how often do you personally refer to you priest or rabbi, to your religion’s legal system? He accuses us of “discarding Muslim intellectuals” for not challenging their imams. Later he would claim that shariah is God’s law for Muslims just as Talmudic law is for Jews.
Spencer gives two contemporary examples of Islamic doctrine applied to the letter with a fatal outcome. Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, executed for heresy in Sudan in 1985 for proposing a reversal of the rule of abrogation that would make the “gentler” koranic verses prevail over the warrior ones. Suleiman Bashir, a West Bank professor who dared to suggest that the Koran was the product of a historical process, was thrown out the window by his students.
Sidestepping these serious challenges to his case, Jasser blames such ills on “fascist” governments of Muslim countries, nourished by petrodollars, who allow radical Islam to flourish as an excuse for imposing strict security measures, while the theological monopoly of al Azhar strangles religious reform. Dr. Jasser is pleased to see that things are changing though he readily admits that the Arab springtime might well lead to a wintry disappointment under the heel of Muslim Brotherhood tyranny. But the way to solve the problems of these states is through spirituality, through God, through Islam.
I wonder if the old “fascist” governments and the eventual Muslim Brotherhood dictatorships might have something to do with Islam. Not in the eyes of the good doctor. It’s all about culture. Tribalism, as Irshad Manji would say. Old customs that linger for some unknown reason, despite the beautiful truths that the masses of Muslims wisely draw from the well of Islam, untroubled by the dark currents unfairly exaggerated by Robert Spencer.
Mr. Spencer, who is not easily undone, stands firm on the validity of doctrine as a basis for judgments on the realities of Islam. Terrorists presenting themselves as the true Islam, based on doctrine, convince and radicalize young Muslims. In periods when Islam was less aggressive than it is today, Spencer says, it was not due to a change in doctrine but to changes in circumstances.
Would the heart of Dr. Jasser’s argument stand up to rigorous medical examination? Essentially he maintains that you have to appreciate Islam through the flesh and blood existence of Muslims, preferably devout Muslims like himself who harbor no ill-feelings toward infidels, aren’t crazy about imams, and learned how to be good and worship God before they even heard about the doctrine. Again accusing Robert Spencer of blindly swallowing theoretical knowledge, he extrapolates from his faith experience and ascribes the same configuration to Jews and Christians: It’s not about doctrine, it’s about spirituality, the unmediated personal relationship to God.
Whatever way you package it, doesn’t it come out the same? If we judge Islam by the behavior of Muslims in our countries in our times, it throws us right back to the doctrine. How many people would be struggling to get it all straight, if it hadn’t been for 9/11? If, by Muslims, we do not mean Dr. Jasser and others of his stature and milieu, we find such a close connection between doctrine and everyday life that we are forced to try to understand the doctrine, forced to ask ourselves why it can’t be reformed, why it keeps on producing such terrible societies and such implacable enemies.
Thirty years ago, we saw little evidence of radicalization of Muslims in Europe and the United States. Today it is rampant and growing. If culture is the determining factor, why hasn’t our democratic culture produced de facto reforms? Why do we get beheadings, honor killings, so-called lone wolf jihad attacks… the list is endless. Massive Muslim immigration to Europe has produced the best laboratory for testing the ideas developed in the Spencer-Jasser debate. But of course there was nary a word about it. Muslims like Dr. Jasser are plentiful in Europe and most particularly in France. [3] Have they had the slightest influence on Islamic doctrine? Where is the European Islam we were promised? On the contrary, law-abiding free-thinking Muslims are persecuted by their fellows. Their children are radicalized. Mosques are co-opted by firebrand imams. Women are prodded from hijab to niqab. Violent anti-Semitism flourishes. Can we be damned for trying to understand how a third generation French Muslim youth can be inspired to go to Wazaristan and train for jihad? Why is the culture of his grandparents’ homeland stronger than that into which he was born?
Dr. Jasser made a wink-wink appeal for funding for his organization [American Islamic Forum for Democracy], as he had done at the Peter King hearings. To illustrate its good works, he offered a sample lesson in separation of mosque and state. He teaches these youths that if shariah is imposed by the state, it is no longer God’s law, it is man’s law. This will guarantee, he assures us, that they will never again talk about imposing shariah in the United States. Really?
In a final desperate plea that includes more barbs for Robert Spencer, Dr. Jasser asks how we will solve this problem if we demonize Islam and “the prophet” Mohamed. “To say the prophet was a pedophile is not going to work among Muslims for reform.” Tossing in another erroneous comparison with Judaism, he claims that Islam respects all the prophets. In fact Islam expropriates, plagiarizes, misrepresents and Islamizes Christian and Jewish Biblical figures.
Spencer responds, unruffled, it is not demonizing Mohamed to say what he actually said and did. These teachings lead to concrete measures. Khomeini lowered the legal age of marriage for girls to 9, following the prophet’s example. In Afghanistan most girls above 2nd grade are already married.
“Imagine trying to reform Judaism,” says Jasser, “by saying Abraham had periods when he was a radical barbarian and wantonly beheaded people.” Why in the world would I want to imagine that Abraham—who is not a prophet but a founding father—wantonly beheaded people? What explains this cascade of faulty reasoning, erroneous examples, and repeated evasions?
Apostates, at the risk of their lives, speak out and judge Islam with uncompromising severity, while “reformers” like Dr. Jasser, who have virtually no influence on Islam, dump their problem into our laps. These “homegrown moderates” who want to be devout Muslims while doing no harm to their fellow man can’t reconcile the doctrine, the history, the collectivity, the ideology, the politics, and the ongoing jihad of normal everyday Islam with their own gentle, refined personalities.
So they tell us we are wrong to judge Islam by its scripture, by its history, by its past and current misdeeds, by its fanatical masses, by its benighted nations. We should judge Islam by people like themselves. They are the essence, the rest is circumstantial. Trying to squirm out of the dilemma of apostasy or hypocrisy, they pressure us to ignore what we have so painfully learned and expose ourselves to dangers that we are learning to combat. They act as human shields for Islamic jihad.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—in this debate at least—seems to be practicing “soft dhimmitude.” His arguments are based on superiority of Muslims over infidels, misrepresentation of Christianity and Judaism, denial of responsibility for the ills of Muslim societies coupled with undue praise for their accomplishments, suppression of the long history of Islamic persecution, institutionalized irrationality, prohibition of blasphemy…
I do not need to demonize Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, only to ask him to be self-critical instead of heaping criticism on scholars like Robert Spencer who have taken up the burden of combating jihad by studying its deepest sources. There is no evidence that Dr. Jasser or anyone else can reform Islam but if the impossible should one day become possible it will be a result of facing and telling the truth, not prettying it up.
A popular French singer who converted to Islam some twenty years ago, and took the name Akhenaton—talk about historical perspective!-- asks how we think his children feel when they hear bad things about Islam day in day out in the media…when Islam is associated with terrorism, how do we think they feel?
How does he think we feel when it is true?
ABOUT NIDRA POLLER:
Nidra Poller is an American writer living in Paris since 1972. Her articles appear in the Wall St. Journal Europe, Middle East Quarterly, New English Review, American Thinker and dozens of other outlets. A work of fiction, "Karimi Hotel & autres nouvelles d'Africa," will be published in June by l'Harmattan.
OT:
http://newstime.co.nz/a-warning-to-america-geert-wilders-in-nashville-tennessee-may-12-2011.html
A Warning to America: Geert Wilders in Nashville, Tennessee May 12, 2011
I find people like Dr.Jasser to be twisting in the wind trying to defend the undefendable, how can an educated person really follow an evil ideology such as islam? islam is like any other facist ideology, how can you not follow the doctrine if you believe in it? If Dr.Jasser would talk this way in iran, or any other islamic society he would be tossed out of window or worse. It is because of the Judea Christian values of the West that allows this man to speak the way he does and not fear for his life. l dont trust this man, he is not sincere in the least especially the way he talked down to Robert Spencer and because one is not muslim does not make it any less when one can read their scriptures and make logical assumptions with basic facts as did Mr.Spencer did with his debate.
EXCELLENT analysis by Nidra Poller!
Yes, the soft-spoken Dr. Jasser is the Trojan horse of our day. I remember during the Peter King hearings how sincere he seemed, that he was really one of us and working for the same goals.
At that time, Dr. Jasser said "leave the theological reforms to us". OK, but where are all the "moderates" and what exactly are they doing towards theological reform? Nada. I strongly suspect any sort of "reform" that renounces the "misunderstood" and "out of context" passages in the Sacred Books would be just too intolerable for any Muslim (including Dr. Jasser) to tolerate.
It sure looks like his statement was a cadmium red herring.....
From the Headline:
"The Good, the True, the Beautiful"
I doubt seriously that the master Taqqiya artist, Jasser, has read or appreciated Goethe....
But of course, we are not to look to Goethe's "doctrine" - his writings - in order to understand "The Great and Beautiful". We are just to accept that he was a great man who wrote sublime works, or...
Oh, but wait a minute, according to the circular reasoning so subtly employed by Jasser, the only way we can know Goethe, or Mohammed, or Muslims, is to live with Goethe, or Muslims, etc., etc.....
Rubbish. Faulty premises = faulty "conclusions".
Jasser spews garbage.
So Jasser believes all the imams from Mohammad's day until now have Islam all wrong. They have corrupted the koran and only he knows the true koran. They have changed the words and the only place the true words of Mohammad exist are in Jasser's head. This guy is either delusional or stupid.
Islam: More like, The Evil, the lie, the ugly!!!
I'm not one to throw Dr. Zuhdi Jasser under the proverbial bus and I don't believe Robert Spencer would do that either. Indeed Spencer in the past has referred to Dr.Jasser as one of the good guys. Dr.Jasser who defines himself as a devout Muslim certainly feels compelled to defend Muslim practitioners of Islam. However Dr. Jasser has always warned that there is no place for sharia in America, though he openly admitted in the Peter King Hearings that he did practice some elements of sharia law within his own household without defining them. There was no follow-up question to Dr. Jasser's acknowledgement of that practice.
It is understandable that Dr. Jasser would choose to defend his religion in some aspects of what Mohamed practiced in his first 13 years in Mecca. But Robert Spencer has rightfully and needfully worked to expose the virulent and violent practices of Islam that come after Mohamed makes his pilgrimage to Medina with nearly 150 followers and then becomes a violent and murdering warrior who pillages and rapes caravans.
What Mohamed becomes in his last 7 years of life defines the misery index the world has since endured for nearly 1,400 years. Unfortunately those violent alas among the surahs have been defined as the words of Allah threw the Angel Gabriel and cannot be abrogated for all time, thus any Muslim that tries is marked for blasphemy. As violent as the Quran is on the duty of jihad, the Sira and the hadiths are much more violent. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser simply cannot defend the unabrogated violence in the Islamic trilogy in any way.
I can go through the old and new testaments of the Judeo-Christian Bible and pick out scores of verses espousing actions that, by today’s standards, are repulsive and/or blood-thirsty. Others (Robert Spencer for instance) can do the same for the Cur’an. The difference between these two holy books is quite simple. Religion in the Christian West submits to secular authority (although the Catholic Church is still trying to resist this subordination.) In the Muslim East there is no separation of religion and state. Governments must be in compliance with religious law, or they are not viewed by their subjects (notice I do not refer to citizens, but rather to subjects) as legitimate.
As a citizen I am endowed by the US Constitution with rights that cannot, legally, be infringed upon by the government. As a subject of a Muslim Theocracy, I would not have rights, rather I would be like a medieval serf or a slave bound to a system of laws that I would have no chance to challenge, change or reject.
Moderate Christianity?
Moderate Islam?
One of these is an oxymoron.
"To illustrate its good works, he offered a sample lesson in separation of mosque and state. He teaches these youths that if shariah is imposed by the state, it is no longer God’s law, it is man’s law."
Typical twisted upside down logic of the Muslim mind. In reality, if Sharia is imposed by the state, it becomes legitimized in following the Koran, abrogating so called "man made" laws. False conclusion from the obvious. "Separation of mosque and state" means NO Sharia. Obvious buffoonery to hoodwink infidels, silly nonsense.
"In a final desperate plea that includes more barbs for Robert Spencer, Dr. Jasser asks how we will solve this problem if we demonize Islam and “the prophet” Mohamed. “To say the prophet was a pedophile is not going to work among Muslims for reform.”"
Whether or not Muslims will recognize the truth about their 7th century so called 'prophet' is their burden, not ours. Tell it like it is, and maybe some of them will see the light and apostatize. Bedding a nine year old girl for the old goat's lust is pretty damning, no matter how powerful is the warlord doing it, still an undesirable pedophile on our law books.
"So they tell us we are wrong to judge Islam by its scripture, by its history, by its past and current misdeeds, by its fanatical masses, by its benighted nations. We should judge Islam by people like themselves. They are the essence, the rest is circumstantial. Trying to squirm out of the dilemma of apostasy or hypocrisy, they pressure us to ignore what we have so painfully learned and expose ourselves to dangers that we are learning to combat. They act as human shields for Islamic jihad."
Exactly. 1400 of Islamic misery, slavery, conquest and genocides, with all due respect, proves Dr. Jasser wrong.
Well done, Fearless Leader. As usual, you were unflappable. While your partner-in-crime - David - shouts out with the righteous indignation of moral authority, you patiently and eloquently convey your scholarly wisdom. How well the two of you compliment one another.
As for Zudhi Jasser, what little sympathy I've had for him in the past - his testimony at Congressman King's hearings was noteworthy, it's gone. He's no friend of the anti-Jihad.
To Old Timer:
So which exactly are the "bloodthirsty and repulsive" sections in the four Gospels you write about?
Islam: The Evil, the False & the Ugly. Just changing it slightly...
When I first heard Jasser, Cornelius, about a year ago I thought to myself well here is a reasonable, highly educated man who served honorably in the U.S. Navy. But the more I listened to him (usually on Fox) the more I came to very much dislike him and what he was doing, i.e., putting a happy face on Islam without truly addressing the many pathologies in Islamic doctrine. He's a deceiver, at least of others and perhaps of himself.
Actually, his kind are a greater hindrance to the vast majority of Americans and others in the West reaching correct conclusions respecting what Islam is really about than your standard, generic Islamic terrorists are. Two faces of Islam out there, my friend, and they are so-called moderate Islam and so-called radical Islam. I prefer the latter. It's far more clarifying about where the truth really lies. Hope you are doing well and enjoying fine brews on a regular basis.
i think he is between a rock and a hard place. in most ways I think he is genuin. the problem with people like him and by the way are millions of them they either do not have the courage, the balls, the integrity or fear that they do not denounce the vilonet portion of Islam teaches. how ever we should not lose site of what is happening here. while these debates are helpful our number one prioroty should be that no Sharia laws take place here and more importantly to make sure we do not breed radical Islamists here. remmeber just like my girl friend who is a submarine Jew, there are plenty of submarin muslims. just like my gilrl frind who surfaces twice a year on passover and yum kipur, there muslims who surface a couple of times a year and one of those events is Eid Fitre!! just like my girl friend who consuder here self very Jewish so do these muslims and we need their help.
Greetings from the greatest city on earth!!
Spencer soundly defeated the well-meaning Jasser in this debate.
Jasser is just another anesthetist for the dhimmis.
Old Timer:
With all do respect, you as a Christian are doing yourself an injustice to the Bible, the New Testament of Jesus Christ is in fact the new revelations to the old testament. The facts are that the teachings of Christ when it comes to violence against others reflects an almost unmitigated zero compared to the Quran and the rest of the Islamic trilogy threw the sira and the hadiths.
The irony is that the Quran and the sira went from being somewhat peaceful in Mohamed's first 13 years of preaching in Mecca to extremely violent teachings in Mohamed's last 7 years after his pilgrimage to medina.
Old Timer:
No there is no simple difference between the Bible and the Quran, or for that matter the Islamic trilogy whatsoever.
The Quran allows for no abrogation in its archaic ideology. Its words are considered locked in stone for all time because they are believed to be the words of Allah from the Angel Gabriel to Mohamed. The teachings of Islam along with sharia law are viewed by many experts to as much as 85 percent political then religious in make-up.
Turkey is one of the few Islamic Countries (98Pct) that has remained secular do to Ataturks changes, but yes even that remains in troubled waters--is it any wonder that the EU has had 2nd thoughts of allowing Turkey into the EU---God forbid!!.
That's precisely the reason why I prefer seeing Jihadi parties preferred to moderates in countries like Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, et al. Whenever they have governments that are anything other than that, Western governments and intellectuals love theorizing that the people of those places reject Jihad, are happy to live w/ non Muslims on an equal basis, have no evil designs on Israel, India, Thailand, Philippines, Ethiopia, Serbia, et al and every other stupid conclusion that one can draw.
If Western decision makers and opinion influencers saw what we saw, I'd be content to support people like Mubarak in Egypt, Karzai in Afghanistan, Musharraf in Pakistan, et al since such Western governments would be on their toes and be sure to read these people the riot act if they were playing footsie w/ Jihadis. But since that's not the case and they don't, I'd like to see their theories disproved about these countries, so that people of both the West, as well as local infidels - Israelis, Thai, Indians, et al recognize them as the enemy. That's the minimum that has to happen before politically correct multi-culturalism is seriously discredited w/ the population at large.
Sorry Adrian, I thought there was more to the new testament than just the four gospels. Paul did not write the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It his view of women and the human body that I find 'repulsive.'
All of this is off topic. It is impossible to argue with those infused with TRUTH, whether they be Christians or Muslims.
Mackie, I am not a Christian. To understand history one must necesarily study religion. I do believe in god, but not in your God nor in Allah, therefore I am, in your eyes and in the eyes of Islam, an atheist. You do not believe in my god, therefore in my eyes your are the atheist. This discussion does no good at all. The enemy of western civilization is Islam and Sharia Law. Keep your eyes not on me, I will fight beside you against evil, but upon what I believe to be the Great Evil, Islam.
Wellington,
Funny thing about Jasser...he's a self-proclaimed opponent of Sharia at the same time he insists that Islam holds the solutions. Ever so slightly contradictory.
Meanwhile, I'm doing well, thanks. Hope you and yours are also.
Are we going to have football this year?
Hello Old Timer:
In your first post, two things stood out to my weak mind: the Cur'an and the idea that in Islam they are not citizens but subjects. I have been thinking about this theme a little and asked Mr Sanity to find a picture of a citizen on a soap box in Hyde Park trying to persuade and reason with his fellow citizens. I then asked him to get an image of an Imam and the praying males and the females in the back--most definitely subjects and abject at that as often happens when you have a priestly class.
I've been on a bit of a bender and this came to my mind, "What profit hath a man if he hath no cause greater than himself?" as you and all the posters here at JW have shown time and time again--Islam ain't included. I'll fight beside you any day and I am an old timer too. From one islamoloathe to another.
Dear Old-Timer,
You had stated a moral equivalency between the life and teachings of the Christ and Muhammad.
What Paul wrote does not concern me, nor does what established churches have spun out as theology since that time.
If you compare faith systems, the first place to look is at the sources.
The central point of Christ's teachings was a turning inward, a self-examination, forgiveness of one's enemies and "turn the other cheek". Who protected the adultress (and who advocates stoning)? Who embraced the Saducee over the rule-observing hypocritical Pharisee (and who created heaps of rules for his followers on ablution, 5x prayers, dress, etc etc)? Who forgave his murderes (and who specifies cutting off hands and feet, and smiting your enemies)?
Christianity has led to individual human rights. I'm sure u realize where Islam leads to.
I think your blanket statement of "scores" of repulsive and blood-thirsty verses in Christ is just flat out wrong.
Sadly, Cornelius, I think we are definitely more likely to have Islamic terrorist attempts aplenty later this year than pro football. Would love to be wrong on this one, particularly because I want a Packers/Steelers rematch, which I know you know why.
On the matter of Sharia, there are Muslims out there who think you can have Islam without Sharia. Then there are non-Muslims folks like Daniel Pipes who assert that much of Sharia is only applicable to the seventh century and so is now anachronistic. Two problems with these approaches: 1) there is still much rot in Islam even without Sharia, the Koran alone is, and I love quoting a liberal here in Bill Maher, a "hate-filled" book; and 2) there are still millions of Muslims, actually easily hundreds of millions of Muslims, who believe Sharia is an integral part of Islam and they will support doing away with anyone, Muslims or non-Muslims, who think or act otherwise. So, back to square one, which is to say that the burden to all the world which is Islam remains unabated.
There's another difference you missed, Old Timer, between the Bible and the Koran. The Bible is often merely descriptive (e.g., stoning of adultresses, which no Jew or Christian wants today) while the Koran is always prescriptive (e.g., the Pew Research poll from June 2010 showed that 82% of Egyptians think adulterers should be stoned to death). Also, there's a big difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The former condones some violence committed in the name of religion by man (again, in a remote time, not for all time) while the latter condones no violence in the name of religion. None. These are huge differences. Gigantic ones.
And just look around, how many Jews and Christians are committing violence in the name of their respective religion? Theory versus reality here. Theory doesn't hurt me. Reality can. This is why I find it useless and stupid to castigate Christians and Jews for any violence (or other possible dubious statements) mentioned in the Bible. Christians and Jews are no threat to the First Amendment and Western liberties in general. Why alienate them at all when we're in the fight for our lives and for our freedom with that religion which Arthur Schopenhauer referred to as "that despicable doctrine?"
Human nature plays a role in keeping islamic violence somewhat in check. The reason why so many otherwise devout Muslims don't follow the violent path of their more doctrinaire brethren is that despite the anti-infidel indoctrination they are subjected to from their imam's and their religious texts, there is something lurking in the human spirit that prevents them from losing all self control. I guess you could call it a genetic safety valve. For Muslims this biological governor is a good thing because without it Islam would have gone extinct by now. A tripping point would have been reached long ago triggering a genocidal backlash from the non-Muslim world.
"He concludes this round with the Al Andalus whopper-- 13th century Spain, a golden age for Judaism, Maimonides and all that. Not, of course, he hastens to add, golden compared to our modern democracies. “I wouldn’t want to live in 13th Century Spain but, compared to Europe…”
Whatever you may think of Yasser, I'm not buying any.
Perhaps he is ill informed, perhaps he believes the 'golden age' crapola.
As a Jew I would not want to live in 'Andaluz' either, especially not with Yasser lording over me.
Mr Spencer looks pissed at 21:00 and I can't say that I blame him. Jasser made a point about how enlightened Islam was compared to Christianity in the 13th century but when Mr Spencer counters his claim Jasser merely brushes it aside and says it's silly to compare that time with today.
How annoying and frustrating.
I do enjoy watching Mr Spencer in action tho!
You missed my point. Your belief in the bible is not a threat to me or my freedom. Osama's belief in the Cur'an was a threat to me and my freedom, and Islam and the Cur'an continue to be a threat to me and my freedom. Just because there are ideas in the bible that I object to, does not mean that I believe that Jews and Christians are actively trying to implement these ideas. Islam is another can of worms entirely.
Perhaps you should return to the seminary for some refresher learning. Jesus did not do any writing. All of his speeches were recorded long after the fact. Paul is the creator Gentile Christianity. Philip wanted all Christians to first become Jews. There is much more to the bible than you seem to be aware of. If the old testament has been replaced by the new, why do all the christian bibles I am aware of still retain the old testament? I feel sad that I have offended you, but I am not trying to convert you nor am I trying to demean your beliefs. Many of the freedoms I cherish have their ideological roots in christianity. The Jews have given much to Western Civiliztion and have been terribly repressed by the christians. The only thing that I can find that the Islamists have given us is algebra and Jihad, what a pair.
Pokermutt, I spent a decade (1976-1986) at San Quentin Prison as a guard and later as a sergeant. Islam is the perfect religion for convicts. Where Christianity teaches tolerance, Islam teaches rage. Where Christianity teaches inclusiveness (we are all god's children), Islam teaches others (non-believers) are not human but pigs, dogs and monkeys. Prison gangs adhere to the same ideology as Islam, others are not human, and are fit only to be killed. Inmates, convicts and Islamists are dangerous because they inhabit the bodies of adults but have all the emotional control of toddlers. I do not see all that much difference between criminals and Islamists.
Dr. Jasser IMO is another BS artist and infidel-soother who, like other BS artists, makes a good living telling people what they would like to believe. Like Karen Armstrong and her ilk these pretend scholars can always get speaking engagements, UN appointments, fashionable party invites, sell books, etc. and they don't need body guards. Real scholars who flatly tell the truth on controversial subjects with solid references & arguments are always attacked, hated, called nasty names and do need body guards, esp. if the subject is Islam. That's trying to make a living the hard way. The money is in pleasant BS delivered with a little scholarly style.
I don't expect Dr. Jasser be honest about the zero chances of reforming Islam among the true believers and destroy his pleasant speaking career. I think he knows that reform minded moderates will always lose the arguments with the fundamentalists because the latter have the texts and traditions to back them up. They are not his real target audience.
As always, if one is a good fuzzyfying talker with a little charm, one can get ahead talking to the many dupes wanting to be pleased, but it's dangerous being on the same stage with the likes of real scholars like Mr. Spencer. BS artists then tend to lose credibility fast.
Your 9:05 A.M. post drew a moral equivalency between the Koran and the Bible (e.g., both espousing "repulsive" actions) and you went on to say that the reason why believers in the latter are not a threat to liberty today is because of their submission to secular authority, as though but for this things would be pretty much equal between Christians, Jews and Muslims respecting being a threat to modern liberties.
Frankly, this reasoning of yours doesn't take into account what I already wrote to you and that is that the Bible is often merely descriptive while the Koran is always prescriptive. So, I don't think I missed your point. With respect, I was correcting it. BTW, I am not religious in the least but it's crystal clear to me that the Bible and the Koran are two very different animals and it's not just a case of Christians and Jews submitting to secular authority and Muslims not so. The fact that the former do goes to the heart of the difference between the Bible and the Koran and the descriptive versus prescriptive distinction I have mentioned. Also, the Bible allows for free human beings to deal with their deity, metaphorically wrestle with their deity, while the Koran simply demands submission and complete obedience to Allah, who functions as an Orwellian tyrant on a cosmic scale. The Judeo-Christian ethic does not rob man of his dignity and free will. The Islamic ethic most assuredly does. This helps explain why democracy (real democracy, not sham democracy) and the Judeo-Christian ethic have worked hand in hand fairly well while democracy and its hand-maiden, liberty, are inveterate enemies of Islam, a control-freak, totalitarian ideology if ever there were one.
Sheik
you wrote - "As a Jew I would not want to live in 'Andaluz' either, especially not with Yasser lording over me."
Same deal here. As a *Christian*, I would not want to live in 'Andaluz' either, especially not with Yasser (or any other of the various Mohammedans who have either threatened and sneered and boasted, or slyly sought to deceive us right here at this forum, from time to time) lording over me.
Jasser, he's the 3rd Jihad guy. Part of the problem he is.
I never never never thought I would say this,, but Andrew McCarthy is an egotistical A**hole.
I think his work, especially on the Center for Security Policy TeamB2 Report is very very good and valuable but not only did he not give Spencer enough leadway to respond to Jasser sufficiently and call the trojan horse a great patriot, but he actually had the nerve to shush (SSSHHH) Spencer when he took the "Moderators privilege" and did not allow Spencer to finish the "demonizing Muhammad" claim around 41:20.
Some one noted above that Spencer got mad at about 21:00 but he also got rather irritated twice after that because McCarthy could not get out of the way of Spencer's superior scholarship and knowledge.
At least now my suspicion that Jasser is a trojan horse was solidified by this debate. Sadly Jasser will never debate Spencer without a moderator!!! THIS DEBATE SHOULD HAVE HAD A MORE TRADITIONAL FORMAT to avoid all of McCarthy's overbearing leading.
Islam is so good thatProtestantism and Islam entered into contact during the 16th century, at a time when Protestant movements in northern Europe coincided with the expansion of the Ottoman Empire in southern Europe. As both were in conflict with the Catholic Holy Roman Empire, numerous exchanges occurred, exploring religious similarities and the possibility of trade and military alliances.
Relations became more conflictual in the early modern and modern periods, although recent attempts have been made at rapprochement. In terms of comparative religion, there also interesting similarities, as well as differences, in both
religious approaches.
Following the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmet II and the unification of the Middle East under Selim I, Soliman, the son of Selim, managed to expand Ottoman rule to Balkans. The Habsburg Empire thus entered into direct conflict with the Ottomans.
At the same time the Protestant Reformation was taking place in numerous areas of northern and central Europe, in harsh opposition to Papal authority and the Holy Roman Empire led by Emperor Charles V. This situation led the
Protestants to consider various forms of rapprochement (religious, commercial, military) with the Muslim world, in opposition to their common Habsburg enemy
During the development of the Reformation, Protestantism and Islam were considered closer to each other than they were to Catholicism: "Islam was seen as closer to Protestantism in banning images from places of worship, in not treating marriage as a sacrament and in rejecting monastic orders".
Luther extensively criticized the principles of Islam, but on the other hand he also expressed tolerance towards the practice of the Islamic faith: "Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy and other false Christians live."—Excerpt from On war against the Turk, 1529.
Martin Luther's ambivalence also appears in one of his other comments, in which he said that "A smart Turk makes a better ruler than a dumb Christian".
Totally disagree, I have listened to Jasser many times and have never felt his words were Taqqiya. For him to denounce portions of the Quran as hostile rhetoric used for jihad in a public forum such as Fox News, is quite brave. Sorry Spencer, you are wrong on this one.
Maybe his words aren't taqiyya but Jasser's still trying to put lipstick on a pig and pass her off as a beauty pagent winner.
Trying to reform Islam by cherry picking the Qur'an & hadiths while denying the parts that are intolerant, violent, pro-militant jihad, etc., and thereby also completely reworking Muhammad's biography, clearly will have no credibility and just cannot work, if only because it would throw out most of the Qur'an & Sira. I think Zuhdi Jasser is smart enough to see this but his pretense is his gig.
I say it is better to NOT work for reform but to continue to educate (as Spencer, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, and many others are publicly doing with books, debates, web sites, etc ) as to how absurd this cult of Muhammad is, how obviously the Quran was created by a man or men - most likely Muhammad himself - and argue that Muhammad was a fraud, and a very obvious one recognized as such in his time but able to succeed by shrewdness, charisma and by his terrorizing practice of having his critics assassinated while offering his followers captive sex slaves, loot from conquests and the pretense of divine guidance for those who needed the rationalization.
Islam has to go and go completely, not just because it is stunningly ridiculous but because it is extremely dangerous and too easily inspires terrorism. It can't be reformed. It must be vigorously criticized and ridiculed to death. With mass communication technology I think over time this is possible.
Robert
The superiority,numbers,of muslim's over the indidels.
In thosedays, more numerous will be those of the unwedded wife. Yeah, thesedays. Hagar never married did she?
michael
Jasser is more dangerous than jokers like Anjem Choudry because he looks and sounds so moderate. But he is a liar as all Muslims are commanded to be. There is no moderate Islam just as there was no more Hitlerism.
Dr Jasser, every time I see him seems a bit "tortured." I am more interested in the work he is doing with young people to which he alluded during the debate. If their minds are open and allowed to ask questions and come to their own conclusions or put them on the path of further inquiry, both spiritual and intellectual as well as practical, that would already be a meaningful beginning of reform or die.
That should read "no moderate Hitlerism."
Watching this debate drove me crazy. McCarthy did not establish the amount of time that Robert Spencer and Dr. Juhdi Jasser would each have to speak nor did he appear to interested in giving each of them equal time to reply to each other.
McCarthy didn't seem to be able to stop talking or to stop talking to Dr. Jasser; at one point it looked like all of the conversation would be between McCarthy and Jasser with Robert left sitting in his chair on one side like a school kid being punished.
From what I saw and heard, it looked like at least 70% of the speaking time was given to Dr. Jasser, 20% was used up by McCarthy, and Robert got only 10%.
More than a few times, I found myself shouting at my monitor telling either McCarthy or Dr. Jasser to SHUT UP and let Robert speak.
About a year ago, I got an email from www.actforamerica.org proudly proclaiming that they had just accepted Dr. Jasser, who was in his own words, a DEVOUT MUSLIM, as a member of their staff.
Having already identified Dr. Jasser as a trojan horse, I wrote them a letter explaining in detail my concerns and the reasons for them but never recieved a reply.
I thought to myself how tragic it was that such a well meaning organization as Act for America could have been infiltrated by one of the very people whom they claimed to be working against. It was obvious and tragic that Brigitte Gabriel had willingly allowed herself to fall victim to the insanity of diversity by insisting on having members of every religion represented within her organization. What Dr. Jasser was doing by becoming a high ranking member of the staff of Act for America was playing by the rule "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer", as he still is.
Did anyone else notice how Dr. Jasser repeatedly started a sentence and changed the subject before finishing it?
Was this an efort on his part to confuse the audience and/or Robert and Andrew? Or to present an idea without fully explaining it or his stance on it so that his opponent could not reply to it or so that his deceitful words might linger in the minds of the audience as unanswered truths?
I'm so glad I saw this, even if it's a little late. My Christian Heart had me questioning whether Islam was reformarble after watching (and enjoying) much of what Dr. Jasser had to say. I've watched the Third Jihad and thought it was an extremely important movie. However, after watching it and looking into Dr. Jasser even more, I wondered, "how can he still be a practicing Muslim?" After all, most Muslims who finally come to realize the evils of Islam convert (i.e. Kamal Saleem, Walid Shoebat, etc.). It didn't make sense... that is, until I found this debate.
My hunch after watching this debate? Dr. Jasser is the devils secret weapon. Jasser is comitting taqiyya, without even knowing he's comitting taqiyya. Dr. Jasser has decided to discard the Hadith... the bibliography of mohammeds life? That's the devils ultimate goal! He's the "deceived-deceiver". Wow! Scary, but a learning experience going forward.