In 2006 I wrote the book on the right, The Truth About Muhammad, a biography of the prophet of Islam based on the earliest Muslim accounts of his life, in order to illustrate what Muslims generally believe that Muhammad said and did. In my forthcoming book, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins, which will be published April 23 by ISI, I examine the historical value of those early Muslim accounts. It is an attempt to determine whether what Muslims believe Muhammad said and did, as recounted in The Truth About Muhammad, actually corresponds to historical reality.
There are numerous reasons to question the historicity of the early Muslim accounts of Muhammad's life. Take, for example, an incident I refer to briefly in yet another book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):
Muhammad already had experience as a warrior before he assumed the role of prophet. He had participated in two local wars between his Quraysh tribe and their neighboring rivals Banu Hawazin.
That he participated in these wars, known collectively as the Fijar War, or Sacrilegious War, is generally agreed upon, but there is no agreement about what he thought later about his role in them. The Egyptian writer Muhammad Hussein Haykal, in his 1933 biography, Hayat Muhammad (translated into English as The Life of Muhammad), quotes Muhammad expressing regret for his participation in this war:
"I had witnessed that war with my uncle and shot a few arrows therein. How I wish I had never done so!" (Pp. 52-3)
However, the ninth-century Muslim historian Ibn Sa'd, in one of the earliest and most important sources for biographical information on Muhammad, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, directly contradicts Haykal by quoting Muhammad saying this about the Fijar War:
I attended it with my uncles and shot arrows there and I do not repent it. (I.143)
So which is it? Is Haykal right that he really did express regret, or is Ibn Sa'd right that he explicitly ruled out doing so? Haykal doesn't give his source, but it is possible that he had access to a hadith or some Islamic tradition that flatly contradicted the one Ibn Sa'd recorded eleven centuries earlier -- although this is unlikely, since Ibn Sa'd often records variant and contradictory reports and discusses how they can be harmonized, or why one should be accepted and the other rejected. In this case Ibn Sa'd gives no hint of any variants. Haykal may simply have altered this tradition for apologetic purposes. Those who cite him as their source on this, or try to build an argument upon his quotation, do so at their own risk.
Nonetheless, such contradictions abound in the hadith reports. Muhammad can quite often be found saying contradictory things, as I show in Did Muhammad Exist?. In that book also I discuss how this odd situation came about: opposing factions both invoked Muhammad as an authority, and invented traditions to support their point of view.
Of course, they didn't come up with all that many decisive variants on the matter of waging war against and subjugating non-Muslims. That Muhammad was a warrior and taught warfare against non-Muslims is not disputed by any party, regardless of their view of whether or not he regretted his participation in the Fijar War -- unfortunately for infidels. Here are two of the many hadiths in which Muhammad counsels war:
"I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah." -- Sahih Muslim 30
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." -- Sahih Muslim 4294
UPDATE: I have received an email full of various false statements. I know the claims made about me are false, so it should come as no surprise that their claims about Arabic are false as well.
The email took issue with the points I made here on the basis that the Arabic of the passages from Haykal and Ibn Sa’d is identical. But that was not the issue in my post: the question is whether, as I said Haykal “had access to a hadith or some Islamic tradition that flatly contradicted the one Ibn Sa'd recorded eleven centuries earlier” – in other words, that led him to interpret the passage in the way that he did, such that his translator rendered it in one way, and the translator of Ibn Sa'd translated it in the opposite way.
I was working from the two-volume edition of Ibn Sa'd translated by S. Moinul Haq and published by Kitab Bhavan in New Delhi, which I have here in my office, and which is available at Islamicbookstore.com and numerous other Islamic bookstores. Did S. Moinul Haq, a respected Muslim translator of many Arabic works, really make an elementary error in his translation?
Actually, no. There is a good possibility, obliquely acknowledged in the email attacking my post, that the disputed statement from Muhammad could be translated as "I would not be pleased had I not done so." Although it is not incorrect to say that ما as a negating particle is not commonly used to negate a present tense, it still could be used, and a good majority of Arabophones use ما to negate the present tense in a variety of dialects, albeit not necessarily in written form. But this tradition purports to record what Muhammad said; why wouldn’t it be in Arabic as commonly spoken? So it is entirely possible that it uses ما to negate the present, as in common spoken form. Certainly Gulf-Arabic spoken variants do use ما to negate the present tense even today.
The double negative is not necessarily "nonsensical" here, as the email claims, and it would indeed translate into "I would not be pleased had I not done so," or “I do not repent.” To say that “repent” doesn’t appear in the Arabic is a quibble that betrays that the author of the email does not have even a basic understanding of how translation works.
If Muhammad didn't exist, would it be necessary to invent him? I'd certainly be quite happy for neither to be the case, but unfortunately he lives in the minds of hundreds of millions if not billions of people today, which can often of course pose problems for the rest of us. Unfortunately, 'Human Rights Watch' doesn't think that we've got enough people in European countries who have Muhammad living in their heads, and is thus recommending that we open up our national borders to as many Muslim migrants who wish to settle in our lands. Don't give money to Human Rights Watch! http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2012/01/human-rights-watch-promoting-islamism.html
Robert,
Just to confirm, going by the title of your book, is your argument that conflicting hadiths like the above go so far as to throw Muhammad's very existence into question?
Whatever the case, I look forward to reading it. :)
Thanks,
Come, come now Mr Bond, do I appear to be a joker ?
"If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."
Nice racket, explains a lot about islam and its universal mischief.
A persons mental faculties need to be examined when they are incapable of comprehending that islam is rotten to its core. It is plain to see islam operates using the crude methods of your typical criminal enterprise; protection money, intimidation, hostage taking and violence. We must not permit islam to further corrupt our American way of life, and we must certainly do all we can to save our selves form jihadists killing more of us in our own soil.
islam is at war with America
this American is at war with islam
"Muhammad already had experience as a warrior before he assumed the role of prophet."
Muhammad .. a warrior???
In the battle of Uhud, Muhammad did not fight. He gave his sword to Abu Dujana to strike the heads of his enemies with it. Sahih Muslim, 31, 6040
He used to hide behind the army unit. Bukhari, 4, 52, 54
He used to wear two coats of mail even if he had no intention of fighting. Biography of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham v.2, p.66
The brave Muhammad gave his sword to one of his naïve followers asking him to smite the enemy with it until it bends. Biography of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham v.2, p.66
When surrounded by his enemies he said: Who will sell his life for us? Biography of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham p.303
And when the Muslim army was defeated, the Brave Muhammad played dead!!! Biography of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham p.304
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/03/muhammad-coward.html
Robert
Is that a picture of Mohammed that you have on the cover?
Separate question - will this book be available for online reading, say on a Kindle or iPad?
It certainly does appear to be an old painting of Mohammed surrounded by a spray of flames no less.
And I could be wrong, but he also appears to be shrouded behind a veil, which is interesting.
Just pre-ordered mine on amazon. Cannot wait to read, own this book.
Imagine the title was something like 'Early 7th Century Arab prophetic aspirations in the light of minor contemporary Christian and Jewish sects in Exile' ?
It would be impossible to blast the book from the cover alone.
I tend to believe in the historical Muhammad. The portrayal of the man painted in the Hadith and Sirat Rasul is so unflattering and downright pernicious (mass murderer, pedophile, usurper of his adopted son's wife) that one is compelled to believe it WASN'T made up out of whole-cloth.
There is even a Hadith where Muhammad commands his faithful to change the way they pollinate the date palms, which results in a dramatic fall in yield. Afterwards, he admits his mistake and insists his expertise is confined to religious matters.
It could be argued that ordering the murder of the poets, the torture and mutilation of renegades, and the mass execution of the Banu Qurayzah was not out of step with the morality of the times, but screwing up the date harvest is a different matter. It is unflattering in ANY possible context. Why would such a detail be attributed to a fictional character considered sacrosanct?
Hi Robert.
I was just wondering will this book be available on the barns and noble NOOK?
If Mahound never existed, who ever wrote the equally fake hadith had a super imagination, and a great sense of humor...
Infidel Pride wrote:
Robert
Is that a picture of Mohammed that you have on the cover?
...
Urban Infidel wrote:
It certainly does appear to be an old painting of Mohammed surrounded by a spray of flames no less.
And I could be wrong, but he also appears to be shrouded behind a veil, which is interesting.
............................
It is indeed. While the prohibition again images of humans and animals—and *especially* against the "Prophet" Muhammed—has been widely enforced, it was also violated in certain traditions over the centuries.
The most notable are Turkish, Persian, and Mughal Indian—places that had *very* strong pre-Islamic artistic traditions. It took quite some time for these to be stamped out completely.
This image is from 16th century Persia, and shows Muhammed riding on Buraq during his alleged "Miraj"—his trip to Islamic paradise and to the "furthest mosque", now usually interpreted as Jerusalem.
Muhammed was often—though not always—portrayed with either a veil or an eerie, blank white face.
Here's another view of the piece:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uxVnjqldHIE/SxFrnG0xavI/AAAAAAAAEQw/d7-rB4smjjI/s1600/Miraj+by+Sultan+Muhammad+dt.jpg
The full image can be found on this site:
http://im-akermariano.blogspot.com/2009/11/buraq.html
Here's the very best compendium of images of ol' Mo that I have found—it includes images created by Muslims, European images such as the "Prophet" burning in hell, and some modern images such as the MoToons:
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Can't wait to read it.
"I tend to believe in the historical Muhammad. "
I tend to agree that the 'real' Mohammad was some obscure figure in Arab history, partly delusional, partly war-lord, partly ordinary guy of his time. But by the time of the Third Caliph, Uthman, the Arab warrior clans ran with it and made Mohammad bigger than life, the 'perfect' man, and lauded beyond reason. Why, even to question him or say anything disparaging is heresy, often punishable with death. I blame the Third Caliph for making Mohammad into a revered personage, propaganda though it was. Hence, I think Mohammad of the Moslems is essentially a quasi-fictional character.
Then there's the Veiled Prophet Society of St. Louis, and its annual Veiled Prophet Ball. Have the Moslems ever made any threats against it?
"Come, come now Mr Bond, do I appear to be a joker ?"
Sorry, LJ, I don't follow you.
While I tend to think that Muhammad was a historical Arabian warlord with prophetic pretensions, I also think that that Robert is a careful student of his subject, and I plan to read the book when it comes out.
One could argue, I think I would be prepared to argue but preferably over several pitches of beer, that Mohammed's actual existence is secondary to the Mohammedan character portrayed by early Muslim writers. Whether an historical or fictional character in such writings, the key point arguably should be that these early Muslim authors praised a human being who is repulsive, parasitical, grossly opportunistic, rapacious, perverted (the number 9 here should always be kept in mind), narcissistic and, in general, not worthy of admiration by anyone with common sense. Historical or not, the Mohammedan personality is a deeply warped one.
And Islam rests upon this personality. Telling. Damning. Instructive. And it's a win-win situation for all those who are trying to point out to the world at large that Islam is rotten to the core.
I suspect Mo existed (although perhaps not under the name "Mohammed") and that he was a warrior with an abysmal personality and a bit of a messiah complex. Then some time after his death it became useful to beef up the messiah angle and splice together an actual religion, which was interwoven with all the warrior's legendary bad qualities.
And the entire world is in peril just because an empire needed a religion.
I tend to believe in the historical Muhammed, as well. He is too specific a figure, in my mind, to have been wholly invented.
That being said, clearly a lot of lore surrounding the "Prophet" are accretions.
In addition, though, it is a mark of free inquiry that *everything* about such a figure be questioned, even his very existence.
This is not allowed in Islam, and something that all too many Muslims want to shut down in the West, as well.
So—I heartily welcome "Did Muhammad Exist?".
That's the precise point, which is why honestly, I'm not getting the point of this book. I do have the Truth about Muhammad and the PIG to Islam and I do understand and agree w/ what's written in them. But this next book - even if it were to expose that the real Mohammed was actually a saint who lived in a cave in Taif, I'm not getting what relevance it would have at all on the billion and more Mohammedans worldwide. Unless someone were to start a sect around that characterization and convince most Muslims to ignore Ibn Ishaq, Jalalayn, Bukhari & others, and instead go w/ this account.
10 years as a cult leader yielded less than 100 dupes.
13 years as a military leader yielded zero opposition.
It all about jihad folks.
It is true that the fake prophet had 2 jazeera rivals. In fact quereshis waged war against the followers of a Yemeni "prophet."
Did he exist? Probably. It would have taken a leader to direct the arab aggressions and murders. Of course, the quran accounts were embellished. I support the Hindu version that holds that the term "musulem" was rooted in the Sanskrit term for the "missiles" that supposedly fell on arabia as Hindu "thunder gods" tossed same at their rivals. There are a couple of hadith references to "Indian spices," as an object of trade. When he worked for his wife's family, Muhammad likely cameled these to Jerusalem (el-Kadish). Hindus claim that his first bandit targets were Subcontinent traders who the muslims plundered to advance jihad. The quran notes that Yemen was destroyed when the Marib dam collapsed in about 530 AD. It is highly likely that Hindus moved into the breach. It is possible that Mushriken (polytheist) refers to Hindus. In fact, the 7 time circling of the kaba, mirrors early Hindu rites. The kaba itself is a Copt derivative, as was Muhammad's use of Coptic pendulums ("seal of the prophets").
Poor Show Mr Spencer! Why not share why you chose to write about this particular topic, using some of the exact phrases that you did. Was it becuase someone who should not be named *cough* Danios *cough* wrote something on your little book?
Oh:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/why-you-shouldnt-trust-robert-spencers-biography-of-the-prophet-muhammad-i/
We'll see how long my comment stays up for eh?
Jack
Judging from the excellent research of Gerard Puin, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Ibn Warraq, Volker Popp, Christoph Luxenberg and others, building on earlier scientific scholarly work, it is now pretty certain that the Muhammad we know from Islamic tradition never existed at all - he was invented in the 8th century, but probably building on some traditions about an Arab war leader or general named Muhammad, and conflating this person with Christ (the subject of the Dome of the Rock inscription).
I am keenly looking forward to Robert's book, as I think the fruit of this important research needs popularising, so that Muslims can learn that their faith is based largely on a mythological account of Islam's origins
Reality is what you think it is. If 1.5 billion Muslims believe Muhammad existed & that he was the perfect man we should concentrate on bringing his character into disrepute by highlighting his moral failures, just assume he existed like the Muslims whether he did or not.
You wrote: Reality is what you think it is.
But that's only what *you* think! :) Back to square one.
If you are interested in this topic, then I highly recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Origins-Islam-Research-History/dp/1591026342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327662038&sr=8-1
The German original had the title: "Die dunklen Anfänge", you can translate this as "the obscure origins"
This book is written in a scholarly way, but it is readable for non-experts. Robert probably took some inspiration from this book, but he will probably provide additional evidence and references for his book and discuss its content in a more accessible but nevertheless accurate manner.
I am looking forward to reading his take on this subject.
"If 1.5 billion Muslims believe Muhammad existed & that he was the perfect man we should concentrate on bringing his character into disrepute by highlighting his moral failures..."
True, but if we can prove that the recorded history of muhammad must be fictional in large parts, wouldn't that make a difference for Muslims?
"Did Muhammed Exist?" Good question...,
Did Jesus exist? Better question.
There is no real, substantial proof that either of these character's existed. It's all hearsay and based on non-contemporaneous scripture.
'Mushrikun' does not describe polytheists but an absolute denial of the 'greatness (oneness) of allah'.
@D.... "Reality is what you think it is...." Man, this is right on the nail but outright denial of his existence would be the no-nonsense approach.
It's only "Blind-Faith" that keeps any religion alive, that's the reality, as is the reality that the "faithful" of all persuasions are leaving their faiths in droves.
"'Mushrikun' does not describe polytheists but an absolute denial of the 'greatness (oneness) of allah'."
Mushrikun are those who practice shirk. Shirk means worshipping partners of god. Greatness is not the same as oneness. So polytheists is an accurate description.
One could dispute whether Christians practice shirk, who believe in the trinity of god. But, usually christians and jews are not taken to be mushrikun. Instead they are called people of the book Ahl al-Kitab.
Oh no! Oh no!!
Jack Cope has mentioned *cough* Danios *cough*. Ban him, remove him, moderate him! Ooooh, it's too late. We are doomed, doomed!!
Hey Jack, do you often have an odd sensation that someone is following you? Not to worry: it will pass in time. Probably the day you abstain from hints and nebulous suggestions, hey?
I eat my words. After a little searching, you are undoubtedly correct. My misinformation came from a muslim who, on discovering i am Atheist, went into a bout of frenzied name-calling. Not that the name-calling is exclusive to muslims. I've had worse from christians!
Loonwatch and it's janitor Danios are not good job references...I dropped the name Danios at an employment seminar once and they threw rocks...They thought I said Diablos...Not too far off actually...
@ tindrum I know what you are talking about. If you want to know what muslims really think, you have to read the muslim publications directed to muslims.
Let me quote from a standard manual of Islamic Jurisprudence, hailed by the highest Islamic university Al Azhar as conforming with the orthodox Sunni practice Umdat Al Salik, "Reliance of the traveller", pages 744, 745
"Permissible Lying
r8.2 The prophet (Allah bless him and give him Peace) said,
"He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar."
This much is related by both Bukhari and Muslim, with Muslim's version recording that Um Kulthum added,
"I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A: in smoothing over differences)"
This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimges permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says:
"Speaking is a means to achieving objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (....) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory...""
Since unbelievers are not esteemed highly and protecting or respecting unbelievers is not a prime goal of Islam, you will find innumerable reasons or "goals" for lying to them in order to attain a higher goal, i.e. the dominance of Islam.
Yes, this sounds harsh. But, it's standard orthodox sunni doctrin. Please note that taqiyya is only one form of permissible lying in Islam. Not every permissible lie is taqiyyah.
"Muhammad already had experience as a warrior before he assumed the role of prophet."
This is probably the most interesting hypothesis contained in your upcoming book. Maybe Mohammed was a symbolical Mohammed, syncretically combining the rigid beliefs of different people who wanted to project these beliefs into what Mohammed had said and had done during his lifetime ? Maybe Mohammed was simply a successful rebel rouser everyone looked up to at the time, an unscrupulous bandit with no coherent theories or moral imperative whatsoever to justify what he did when he lived, and maybe this ideology had been projected onto what he did by others later on ? So maybe he was a historical figure, although not a religiously inspired one ?
It's not inconceivable that Muhammed, as a common but successful bandit, had a few religiously inclined people trailing in his wake wherever he went that formed a type of ideological in-group within his larger band of followers. What if these people had discussions about conceiving a new kind of ideology among themselves that overruled all pre-existing religious ideologies and in the end they mutually agreed on a coherent theory called Islam ? What if they decided to project the theory as a justified means of subordinating just about anyone else around they had issues with on the person of Muhammed, thereby deciding to proclaim him as a prophet ? (Muhammed himself might even have been totally oblivious to their intent) I tend to believe that Islam can't possibly be the work of a sole individual, it could have been that the personal enmities of a small but influential group (towards Christians, Jews, women,...etc.) projected on a single living person has shaped Islam and Muhammed's prophet status, and not the other way round. The continuation of this projection after his death might have given rise to many different versions of a Quran initially,until one of those became the standardized version in a bid to attach a single cohesive narrative to Islam. (Islam might not have survived as an ideology should it have remained fragmented)
In any case, mere hypothesis, but it seems to me Robert's thoughts are steering towards similar lines of inquiry. I am definitely going to read this book.
Poor show, Jack Cope!
Unfortunately for you and your crowd, the idea that I have some "fear" of mentioning your cowardly leader is a fiction of your own making, like so much of what you claim about me and my work.
In reality, I discussed "Danios" and his fear of debating me in the last two paragraphs of this recent post:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/recently-two-extraordinary-articles-have.html
Cordially
Robert Spencer
The best argument that Muhammad existed is one I saw made at http://muhammad.x10.mx/ . The author writes:
Muhammad's very very young wife, Aisha pointed out that the prophets body had not gone anywhere the night that he said he had his miraculous trip to heaven but said that his spirit must have traveled there (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 183). Miraculous tales such as these served to convince Muhammad's followers that he had a special relationship with God and that what he said was God's word.
This story is one of the reasons I believe that Muhammad existed. If a religious leader made up the story of Muhammad he would not tell stories that cast doubt on his holiness. If a religious leader wanted to convince his rapt audience of how the miraculous Muhammad ascended to heaven he would not say that Muhammad's wife observed that he didn't go anywhere the night that he supposedly ascended to heaven.
First, I pre-ordered your book, based on a combination of your reputation for truth and accuracy. Second, because I can't wait for moustafa zayed to refute it as he did in 'the lies about muhammad'. Perverse, you say?
Oh Mr Spencer how wrong you are... allow me to blather for a while. The rest of you are free to ignore it and carry on with whatever it is you do here. Something to do with convincing us Muslims how our faith works or something like that, very droll but a new hobby would do you good.
Anyway, this 'fear' of my 'leader' (as we disagree on far too much, he is certainly not a leader by any shot) is not a smoke without a fire. You don't mention him when you respond to an article written by him. Please don't argue for that is what this very piece is to most eyes.
Then your 'response' to his accepting your choice of the biased ABN as a moderator is buried at the bottom of a post and fails to mention said acceptance of your choice coupled with your obstruction due to a wish, for some strange reason, to see 'danios's' face. Heck, even an email 'debate' would be acceptable to most I feel but oh no... not in front of the little ones.
The smoke my man, can be smelt a mile off. I try my hardest to be a balanced and fair man Mr Spencer, if you knew my work within my faith (yes, I am a Muslim) then you would know that. However, what goes on here is neither balanced nor fair, I think you know that deep down.
Nor is it particularly relevant to be quite frank. Your unqualified 'interpretation' of Islam is frankly wrong and at odds with most of us Muslims (bed fellows with Bin Laden perhaps, but he was nuts) and thus not important to anyone. I couldn't really care less if you debate or not. You're site, followers and suchlike will wither up soon enough, people get bored of hating one particular 'other' after a while. We saw it with the reds, the Irish, the Jews, the Catholics... who'll be next.
With Peace
Jack
Begone, Satan, you have no powers here!
"biased ABN as a moderator"
The moderation of debates on ABN is very fair. Every debator get's an equal amount of time. The time is kept meticulously.
Therefore, I do not know why a debate should not take place. Robert Spencer has debated numerous Islamists on ABN and none of them could have complained about being treated unfairly.
"...wish, for some strange reason, to see 'danios's' face..."
If Robert shows his face in a debate then danios should do the same thing! What has he got to hide? I want to see his face in a debate with Robert Spencer. I want to see how he acts and reacts emotionally. I think that's a fair request.
"I try my hardest to be a balanced and fair man Mr Spencer,..."
Is that the best you can do? I can see a lot of room for improvement on your side in terms of balance and fairness.
"Your unqualified 'interpretation' of Islam is frankly wrong and at odds with most of us Muslims (bed fellows with Bin Laden perhaps, but he was nuts) and thus not important to anyone. I couldn't really care less if you debate or not...."
Then why do you bring up the topic here? This comment section is about a book by Robert Spencer that shall soon be released. It is not about debating Robert Spencer. Nevertheless, you bring up the topic and say that the topic is of no concern to you?
To be frank: I don't think that you are honest. You are neither honest nor balanced nor fair. If you don't know what these words mean, then look them up in a dictionary.
ABN was accepted, why did it not go ahead? I see no reason why his face must be shown, a telephone interview is sufficient is it not? Danois, for whatever reason, wants to remain anonymous, I suspect so that people can't/won't resort to character assassination. It is his choice, why stick on such a point if his arguments are so weak that they will be blown out of the water? That is the smoke I and others see.
And yes, I try my best to be balanced, as I said my work shows that as do my many disagreements with Loonwatch, but on cannot be perfect. I condemn, and always have, the so called 'Muslim' terrorists and suchlike which are so readily reported as representatives of 'true' Islam here despite the evidence on the contrary. That is why as I said this book et all is largely irreverent, it holds little bearing to what will happen in the world and this 'anti-jihad' movement will run out of steam soon enough. Just cash in while you can, wish I had!
However, I must say that this section is indeed related to the 'debate' because, as my link shows, this article rather conveniently comes out shortly after a Danios article on exactly the same points. Why hide it? Again, the smoke billows.
Jack
"...Danois, for whatever reason, wants to remain anonymous, I suspect so that people can't/won't resort to character assassination..."
But, isn't that what Danois is doing with Robert Spencer, character assassination? Why should Robert Spencer be subject to "character assassination" due to a debate, whereas Danois shall be protected from these reactions?
Where is you sense of "fairness"?
"However, I must say that this section is indeed related to the 'debate' because, as my link shows, this article rather conveniently comes out shortly after a Danios article on exactly the same points..."
About the same points?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/why-you-shouldnt-trust-robert-spencers-biography-of-the-prophet-muhammad-i/
This link has nothing to do with Robert Spencer's new book about the obscure origins of Islam. It is about another book written by Robert Spencer. The main topic of the new book is: "Did Muhammad Exist?" Where is this discussed in the linked article?
Where is you sense of honesty?
Who says Danios will assassinate Mr Spencer's character? I feel the man, though I don't agree with him on an awful lot, will not require that.
And yes, the article is about the same points, nay even the same quotes at times. In fact, is the article not, if they are both taken side by side, a response to the first? Do you not see that through fault or design?
Jack
"Who says Danios will assassinate Mr Spencer's character?"
I say that he has been doing this. Read his posts on loonwatch.
// I try my hardest to be a balanced and fair man Mr Spencer, if you knew my work within my faith (yes, I am a Muslim) then you would know that//
What kind of work do you do, Cope? Do you convince your fellow Muslims that though Muhammad is referred to as a "beautiful pattern of conduct" in the Quran, his behavior is disgusting by today's standards? Do you do everything within your power to tell them that while Muhammad's sexual relationship with a nine year old may have been okay by 7th century barbarian standards, it no longer has any place in today's society? Do you point out to your fellow Muslims that while the Quran does explicitly command men to beat their wives, and that Muhammad struck Aisha hard enough to hurt her, such behavior is totally out of date and has no place in a modern society? Do you spend countless hours on extremist websites convincing your more excitable fellow believers that though there may be plenty of justification in Islamic scripture for their horrendous acts of violence, such actions are no longer acceptable and must be left behind? Or is your work more in the area of perpetuating the silly myth of "Islamophobia"?
And what is your obsession with Danios debating Spencer? I stop by loonwatch on occasion, and I'm always amused by the fact that despite Spencer's extensive publishing history, loonwatch hardly ever directly refutes anything he says. I mean, he's written what, ten full-length books and tens of thousands of blog posts, and what does loonwatch come up with? "Spencer one time joined a mean Facebook group, and he's friends with people who said some bad stuff, and um...". And I read the recent article "debunking" Spencer's biography of Muhammad. So Spencer said that Muhammad was a warrior prior to declaring himself a prophet, even though he only actually participated in two battles, so saying that he was a warrior might not be that accurate, so you shouldn't trust Spencer? How devastating. Seriously, you and loonwatch have nothing to offer. You know that Spencer and other such "Islamophobes" are accurately quoting Islamic scriptures. If you're so desperate to save your cult, convince your fellow Muslims to stop following the dictates of the 7th century madman. And if you're not willing to do that, then quit whining.
". . . this 'anti-jihad' movement will run out of steam soon enough . . ."
LOL, we're just getting started. We won't stop until islam is eliminated. Our resolve is as firm as that of the evil horde.
In what way? Other than childish insults which I think are wrong and... well childish (one of my disagreements with him) then what else? I've seen the claims that Mr Spencer has no qualifications to be talking about Islam repeated often, that is not assassination but fact and one of the reasons why he is of no issue.
And may I take it that the rest of my post is accepted as fact since you didn't respond? See, I am talking, I am trying to be balanced and fair here but that is what the eye sees.
Jack
No, I do none of that becuase that is simply your incorrect interpretation of Islam. Because, despite what you say, you and Mr Spencer et all are not quoting Islamic scriptures anywhere near accurately. This is why your beliefs of what Islam is do not tally with what we as Muslims believe it is. It is that simple.
Jack
"...that Mr Spencer has no qualifications to be talking about Islam..."
That's not an attempted character assassination? What is a character assassination?
"Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation." ;-)
In fact, the whole history of your posts her are an attempt to tarnish Rober Spencer's character. But then, I know you are trying to be balanced and fair;-)
By the way: No one needs any "qualifications to talk about Islam". We are all entitled to voice our opinion on Islam.
The skepticism about Islam is growing with each passing year. Everywhere and among most everyone. Even very liberal folks I know (one of whom I just spoke to yesterday), who several years ago were still using every excuse in the book to disassociate Islam from Islamic terrorism, have pretty much given up on this.
More and more people in America, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, The Netherlands, Denmark and other Western nations are learning that Islam does demand death for apostasy and that any criticism of Islam or Mohammed puts Muslims aplenty into hysterics, often with lethal results. Non-Muslim women are definitely taking greater notice of how Muslim women are second-class human beings compared to Muslim males, notwithstanding the tired old refrain that Islam honors women. And, oh yes, the almost interminable whining by Muslims that they just have it so rough in Western nations, where, of course, they enjoy freedom and oppotunity that don't exist in Muslim countries, has become nauseating to an ever increasing percentage of those in the West. Then there's the character of Mohammed which, the more people learn about it, comes across as truly repulsive, for instance his having sexual intercourse with a nine-year old or sanctioning the killing of those who merely ridiculed him, whether a woman or very old man or whoever. Also what is growing in awareness is that Muslims think they have the right to convert others to Islam while not even remotely according that right to people of other faiths to bring Muslims over to their religion of choice.
So, for you to opine that skepticism and dislike of Islam will eventually wither only reveals what a fantasy world you live in. But, then, if one is prepared to believe that Mohammed was the last and greatest of the prophets, that he's the Model Man, and that the Koran, desultory, repetitive, contradictory, schizophrenic, barbarous and disturbing as it is, is the direct words in Arabic from a transcendent deity, then one can believe anything.
Wonderful... but might I suggest a more useful and constructive hobby? And if you are wanting to send me your threat in writing my details are here:
http://thepenofawanderingstranger.com/personal/contact/
There is even a pretty map on there that will get you quite close to where I am were you be wishing to kill me, quite a lot of your mates are wanting to these days. And I'm not quite sure that we are a) a hoard b) evil or c) any bit interested in what your 'resolve' is. Its certainly not anything like our resolve... well apart from the nutters but you can keep them!
Jack
"No, I do none of that becuase that is simply your incorrect interpretation of Islam."
So your interpretation of Islam is the only correct interpretation?
"Because, despite what you say, you and Mr Spencer et all are not quoting Islamic scriptures anywhere near accurately."
I have some of Robert Spencers books and his quotes of Islamic scripture are impeccable.
What was the definition of character assassination?
"Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination
I think that your posts may readily be subsumed under the term "character assassination".
How is that so? He has no qualification yet he talks and lectures as if he does, is it wrong to point that fact out? And why are his works not accepted as accurate teachings on what Islam is? If he were a Muslim I'd admonish him for teaching falsity but since he is doing us no harm nor leading any Muslims astray then I let it be. In fact he is quite helpful in doing the opposite by showing how daft the arguments are in light of what the scripture actually says!
Jack
Then point out what I've said that was inaccurate. Does Quran 33:21 refer to Muhammad as a "beautiful pattern of conduct? Do the most reliable sources of hadith explicitly state that Muhammad began a sexual relationship with Aisha when she was nine? Does 4:34 explicitly command Muslim men to beat their wives? Does Sahih Muslim report how Muhammad struck Aisha when she disobeyed him? Please tell me what I have misinterpreted.
See man, it's all out in the open now. We know the OIC is so desperate to criminalize free speech because they know Islam can't possibly hold up under scrutiny. So it's up to you and your fellow "moderate" Muslims. Either acknowledge all the terrible things Islamic Scripture and commit to reforming it, or give it up.
Impeccable? Then why are they not accepted for Islamic teaching in any reputable institution? And how is stating such a thing 'character assassination'? It is truth is it not?
And no, my 'interpretation' isn't the only one, but it is the one that most Muslims follow to some degree or extent. Shear weight of numbers suffices here, as does the fact that my beliefs are taught whereas Mr Spencer's are admonished.
Jack
This is what CGW stated:
"". . . this 'anti-jihad' movement will run out of steam soon enough . . ."
LOL, we're just getting started. We won't stop until islam is eliminated. Our resolve is as firm as that of the evil horde."
And this is how you interpret it:
"...There is even a pretty map on there that will get you quite close to where I am were you be wishing to kill me, quite a lot of your mates are wanting to these days..."
If you ask me: This psychological phenomenon is called "projection".
"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feeling."
Danios is a cowardly pussy, pure and simple.
"I've seen the claims that Mr Spencer has no qualifications to be talking about Islam repeated often, that is not assassination but fact and one of the reasons why he is of no issue."
No qualifications? FACT? ? ? ! ! ! You are the master of lame arguments. Spencer quotes almost exclusively from the islamic sources themselves. He's not stating his opinions, he simply relates what mohammedans themselves, and their "scriptures", say about their ideology. He's studied/written about islam extensively for over 20 years. I doubt that you have read even one of his books; you are therefore in no position to ascertain the validity of his work.
If he is "of no issue", why do so many of your co-cultists get their panties in a bunch over his involvement in this "movement"?
CGW issued you no threat. You flatter yourself. You're also engaging in major projection. You really do live in a fantasy world.
In a nutshell...
If you are going to criticize Muhammad's marriage to a 9 year old then you had better start criticizing all of humanity for most of time since all of humanity has married 'children' at some point out of shear necessity (i.e. we died younger). It is also unclear if she was even 9 years old, even if she were she would be considered 'adult' in the culture of the time. Regardless very few if any scholar would give the opinion that becuase Muhammad married a 9 year old, Muslims in this day and age should. In fact, the opposite is said.
As for 'beating', no it doesn't and there are many interpretations and meanings. Frankly I can't be bothered to go into it becuase what goes on here is of no relevance to the real world, nor is your interpretation.
Any followup can be given to me via email as I am off; there is an asteroid currently very close to earth and I'm off to take a look. Far more exciting, you lot have fun:
http://thepenofawanderingstranger.com/personal/contact/
With peace
Jack
"Impeccable? Then why are they not accepted for Islamic teaching in any reputable institution? And how is stating such a thing 'character assassination'? It is truth is it not?"
Robert Spencer's quotes are accepted by reputable institutions. I remember a debate with the guy who wrote "The lies about mohammed" on ABN. The topic of the debate was Jihad. Look for it on ABN.
In this debate Robert quotes form "The reliance of the traveller", which is considers as teaching the orthodox sunni doctrine by Al Azhar, the most reputable islamic institution world wide.
Regarding threats or lack therof;
I was called 'Satan' by said poster and poster then proceed to claim that he/she/it would not stop until 'Islam was eliminated'. I am Muslim, thus 'Islam', thus to be 'eliminated'. Threat? Perhaps not quite, but I didn't actually claim that he/she/it made one rather that he/she/it was most welcome to if they were willing.
That is projection ladies and gents, you become what you hate non?
With peace, have fun and take care. New hobbies needed.
Jack
That's the cowardly response I would have expected. You can't possibly refute anything that's been said, because it's all out in the open now. But that's the beautiful thing about freedom of speech. Islam can't possibly survive it, so as long as we remain committed to exposing the evils of your cult, it'll soon be thoroughly discredited, and the world will no longer be dragged down by the terrible scourge of Islam. Hopefully you'll find the strength to one day break free of the cult, though it does seem to have a powerful pull on its members. Anyhow, best of luck with that.
"Islam was eliminated'. I am Muslim, thus 'Islam', thus to be 'eliminated'. Threat?"
No, because eliminating Islam may easily be achieved by exposing the fallacies of Islam. That is what Robert Spencer is doing and this is why he is hated so vehemently by loonwatch and other islamists.
New hobbies needed? You need a new religion, buddy. You chose the bottom of the barrel with Islam so any other will be a step up.
Oh man, Reliance of the Traveler... where to begin ;-) It's a fiqh book for one thing, secondly it is hundreds of years out of date. Anyone with any idea of how fiqh works knows the rest and why it is daft to bring stuff from that book (the reason is in fact in the introduction of the translation). Hint; fiqh is an opinion of one scholar from one time period, relevant to that scholar and that day and age. Any Muslims using Reliance of the Traveler for reference other than historical?
Sorry, I waste my time here don't I? It is just the same old junk day in day out, you really really really should see yourselves from a Muslim point of view. As I said, a great service is done by this site.
Jack
Oh man, Reliance of the Traveler... where to begin ;-) It's a fiqh book for one thing, secondly it is hundreds of years out of date. Anyone with any idea of how fiqh works knows the rest and why it is daft to bring stuff from that book (the reason is in fact in the introduction of the translation). Hint; fiqh is an opinion of one scholar from one time period, relevant to that scholar and that day and age. Any Muslims using Reliance of the Traveler for reference other than historical?
Sorry, I waste my time here don't I? It is just the same old junk day in day out, you really really really should see yourselves from a Muslim point of view. As I said, a great service is done by this site.
Jack
Since you like to nit-pick and make sweeping generalizations simultaneously, I'll play:
"Regardless very few if any scholar would give the opinion that becuase Muhammad married a 9 year old . . ."
Are you, as a mahoundian, unaware of the teaching that mo is the "perfect man", whose exemplary behavior is to be emulated by all muslims, FOR ALL TIME?
Apparently you are also unaware of the FACT (not just an opinion or a vague, unsubstantiated claim of the type of which you are so enamored) that, upon coming to power in Iran, The ayatollah Khomeini changed the legal marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine years of age, specifically to follow the example of the perverse "prophet" (pigshit be upon him)?
//Sorry, I waste my time here don't I?//
You do, Jack. Those of us on this website have made the effort to understand Islam, and as a result we realize that all the ills of Islamic society are directly related to the acceptance of a delusional, violent pervert as the golden standard for all of mankind. So unfortunately for yourself, none of are susceptible to the relativist BS and outright lies you have to offer. There are still plenty of PC types out there who are willing to fall for the "Islam is the Religion of Peace, it's just a few extremists" lie that Muslims are so fond of, so perhaps your time would be better spent with them.
Simmonsbill11 and Kilian Klaiber, I think both of your comments can be answered with what is normally written 'LOL' or 'ROTFLOL'. Seriously? You have no idea how foolish this site looks to a Muslim do you? Like I said, what is said here only strengthens a Muslim's faith, not the opposite. The same basic arguments are bought up every time, easily dismissed and little is left. I don't think Mr Spencer is hated, laughed at is a more appropriate term.
Jack
I neglected to quote your statement fully:
"Regardless very few if any scholar would give the opinion that becuase Muhammad married a 9 year old, Muslims in this day and age should. In fact, the opposite is said."
Could you possibly back this up with some verifiable quotes from "qualified" sources? I challenge you to come up with even a single, solitary one. Something from Al-Azhar would be acceptable, as an example.
Well, then let me quote, what Al Azhar has to say about "Reliance of the Traveller": Page XX
In the name of Allah the most merciful and compassionate
Al-Azhar
Islamic Research Academy
General Department for Research, Writing and Translation
Mr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller
Amman, Jordan
Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and his blessings.
To commence: In response to the request you have submitted concerning the examination of the English translation of the book "Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat al-nasik"....: we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a). There is no objection to printing it and circulating it....
composed on 26 Rajab 1411 A.H. / 11. February 1991 A.D.
General Director of Reseach, Wrting and Translation
Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar
Khomeini? In all honesty that is like asking me and most Muslims if I believe in Santa, he's a Shia cleric and frankly wrong in most of what he says, even many Shia think that. And he didn't even say that.
Jack
Do you think we care whether or not a representative sample of homo islamopithecus has their belief strengthened? We are here to make our fellow harbis aware of the vile, disgusting nature of you Satanic cult. And in that we are making tremendous strides every single day.
Enlightened Western Civilization shall prevail over the primitive, barbaric ideology of a madman and his intellectually-challenged followers. It's gonna be a blast!
//Seriously? You have no idea how foolish this site looks to a Muslim do you?//
No Jack, I really don't. I have tried to see things from a Muslim perspective, but I find it impossible. For in order to see things as a Muslim, I have to pretend that Muhammad is the most perfect man who to have ever existed. And when I look at Islamic scripture, and I see the way he molested a child, and had people murdered for writing poetry that criticized him, and had entire tribes of Jews slaughtered, and looked the other way when his men raped the women they had had captured in battle, and I see the way he wrote into the Quran an edict from "Allah" telling him he could have sex with anyone he pleased, I find it utterly impossible.
So how about you explain that Jack? You can't be a Muslim without accepting that Muhammad is the perfect man for all time, so tell us all about how you became convinced that that is the case?
"people get bored of hating one particular 'other' after a while. We saw it with the reds, the Irish, the Jews, the Catholics..."
Clearly Muslims have not got bored of hating or killing the 'other' - they've been mass murdering non-Muslims for about 1400 years. Never seemed to have risen above it.
Strange how civilizations and entire populations have disappeared around Muslim hordes.
Oh I think you do CGW, I think you do ;-) Especially since you wish to eliminate us/our faith, isn't it important that we quake at the words of your arguments? Anyway looks one of your chums did follow the email link just now, I have something nice for my collection. Apparently I am to be lined up against the wall and shot. *sigh* again?!
On Reliance of the Traveler, is it not talking of the historical community? As you may note your quote isn't quite finished...
Anyway, I'll be off, thanks for the laughs and please, a new hobby. You'll be out of all this silly stuff in a few years anyway, astronomy is quite fascinating. Its my interest anyway, off to look at the stars...
Jack
"And he didn't even say that."
Hello, he didn't just say it, he changed the law. Look it up for yourself!
BTW, FYI, "he said, he didn't say, they say", etc. are not valid, substantiated points. If you can't even make a cogent argument (typical of most mohammedans), you have no business being here. You're just wasting our time.
"Anyway, I'll be off, thanks for the laughs and please, a new hobby. You'll be out of all this silly stuff in a few years anyway, astronomy is quite fascinating. Its my interest anyway, off to look at the stars..."
That inane sign-off yet again...give it a break.
None of us are here to "convince" musloids of the inevitable Truth. You can't argue with stupid. You'll all be mugged by reality soon enough.
Frankly, we're going to do it, with or without you. It's totally up to muslims whether they learn it the hard way or not.
We're used to your type here . . . never a substantiated fact, just bogus claims that come down to nothing more than half-assed opinion. Thus far I have spent 9 years studying islam and there are many of us who are as committed as the oppositon is.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that this is just a "hobby" to all of us . . .
"On Reliance of the Traveler, is it not talking of the historical community? As you may note your quote isn't quite finished... "
As a sunni you must follow the practice of the historical islamic community, right? ;-)
But no, it is explicitely talking about the practice and faith of the orthodox sunni community (Ahl al-sunna wa al-Jama'a).
The funny thing is that I quoted from the book further above. There is described the practice of lying in Islam:
"...Speaking is a means to achieving objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (....) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory..."; see page 745
I think you are quite a good practitioner of you faith! ;-)
"...None of us are here to "convince" musloids of the inevitable Truth...."
Yeah, you can convince muslims. This man fears Robert Spencer. Therefore, he is trying to assassinate his character. Muslims are forbidden to doubt or question their faith. You just have to be patient. It is merely a matter of time.
@Cope: "Seriously? You have no idea how foolish this site looks to a Muslim do you? Like I said, what is said here only strengthens a Muslim's faith, not the opposite."
Sure, if you're brain-dead it makes sense that any valid objective, researched, reasoned criticism of Mohammad and Islam merely re-enforces your Muslim faith. Why wouldn't it? Your Islamist drone-brain shut down so any new input gets resisted dogmatically, both fingers in both ears… "LA LA LA LALALALA…!!" I can't hear you!! (tongue blowing loud raspberries) I'd expect nothing less. ;-) You are Muslim, right?
Yeah, B_o_T, it stated earlier that it was mahoundian.
As one interested in astronomy, are you going to watch the sun set in a muddy pond tonight as per your islamic scriptures? Your KKKoran, in surah 18.86 says that it does, and this book is infallible according to muslims.
It speaks volumes that our Jack expected to be moderated out of existence. They obviously do this where he is from.
Here's some more info on your "hobby" from your own "holy" book.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/contradictions.htm
" . . . isn't it important that we quake at the words of your arguments?"
No, it's not necessary. It was mahound (pigshit be upon him) who said that he was "made victorious through terror". (Bukhari 4:52.220)
We have Might and Right on our side.
In order to frighten cowardly muslims, all we need are a few jinn on our side . . .
You failed miserably jack cope!, you have only served in convincing more people that islam is certifiably rotten to the core. Your lame defence of mo's abuse of a little child alone is enough to merit for you an extended stay at your local psychiatric institution if not a compulsory stay behind bars would be most appropriate. The enormous psychological strain you must bare in building the walls of denial is quite extraordinary. The recognized brainwashed induced stupor engendered by your habitual daily prostration routine,ignorantly directed towards outer space, and not really towards mecca, mo never allowed for the curvature of a spherical planet , are insufficient escapes form reality for anyone to avoid insanity. You have come short of any blissful hope for a heavenly orgy, mo is displeased with you!
Wakingwest, it's pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel. I don't believe that it's possible to "convince" muslims of the Truth since, due to the serious lack of critical-thinking skills endemic among their population actually caused by islamic indoctrination which inhibits natural ability, they simply don't have the necessary tools to reason properly.
Oh man, I feel bad for Jack Cope.
Jack, out of curiosity, but do you have any comment on Iranian law apparently allowing adult men to take nine year old children as brides?
Oh, and btw, here is a recent issue in Yemen of Muslim clerics OPPOSING proposed the proposed child bride law saying it contradicted the Sunnah of their prophet.
Jack, care to offer any correction to your comment that "few, if any" Muslims today would support pedophilia and underage marriage?
Who is against the minimum age and why?
Much of the opposition has been voiced by conservative elements within the opposition party, Islah, and within the Sharia Committee, along with other religious institutions.
Those who oppose the bill cite the example of the marriage between the Prophet Mohammed and his second wife Aisha, who was said to be around nine at the time. “We view a child as mature when it reaches puberty, not when it’s 18,” said Sheikh Mohammed al-Hazmi, who is a member of the Yemeni parliament.
They also stress that sex outside marriage is adultery, according to Sharia. “We understand that young people are sexually active, but unlike in the West, they can marry here and not partake in immoral behaviour,” said al-Hazmi.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=88589
Let's not forget, Jack, that even the Koran allows tween marriages. The Koran prescribes a waiting period for husbands if they marry a girl who has not yet menstruated. What's worse, the Koran only prescribes a waiting period if the husband has consummated the marriage. Otherwise, if the marriage was never consummated, the wife is allowed to remarry immediately.
Woops, correction to my last paragraph:
Let's not forget, Jack, that even the Koran allows tween marriages. The Koran prescribes a waiting period in divorce for husbands if they marry a girl who has not yet menstruated. What's worse, the Koran only prescribes a waiting period for divorce if the husband has consummated the marriage. Otherwise, if the marriage was never consummated, the wife is allowed to remarry immediately.
Current info on the prevalence of pedophilic child "marriage" in islamic culture:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages
From the above:
"Muslims justify pedophilic marriages with tender aged girls using verses from the Qur'an, that clearly advocates this abominable practice. The Qur'an cannot be questioned by Muslims since it's not simply considered to be 'inspired' but the very words of Allah, uttered by his final messenger Muhammad. In Islam, moral relativism cannot be applied, as the Qur'an is Allah's eternal message to mankind and is as relevant today as it were when the revelations first escaped Muhammad lips."
Jack Cope wrote:
Oh Mr Spencer how wrong you are... allow me to blather for a while. The rest of you are free to ignore it and carry on with whatever it is you do here. Something to do with convincing us Muslims how our faith works or something like that, very droll but a new hobby would do you good.
.......................................
Actually, the main purpose of this site is not to address Muslims at all, but rather to alert Infidels to the threat of Jihad and Shari'ah.
Of course, if some Muslims decide to come by and learn something in the process, that is all to the good.
More:
I condemn, and always have, the so called 'Muslim' terrorists and suchlike which are so readily reported as representatives of 'true' Islam here despite the evidence on the contrary.
.......................................
And just what *is* that "evidence to the contrary"? Jihad terrorists claim to be acting in the name of Islam, and the texts and tenets of Islam clearly serve as the model for this savagery.
If you believe the tenets of your faith are incorrect, perhaps you should attempt to convince your barbaric coreligionists, rather than spending your time here praticing your Taqiyya on good Kaffirs.
More:
That is why as I said this book et all is largely irreverent, it holds little bearing to what will happen in the world and this 'anti-jihad' movement will run out of steam soon enough. Just cash in while you can, wish I had!
.......................................
Actually, while Mr. Spencer's book is indeed "irreverent", I believe you meant to characterize his work as "irrelevant".
As for the frequent charge that Robert Spencer is just "in it for the money", I'm sure that were this true that he could have found a way to earn money that wouldn't have involved garnering so many death threats from your uncivilized coreligionists.
As for the anti-Jihad movement "running out of steam", I believe that will happen when your fellow Muslims stop terrorizing the rest of the world. With over 18,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11, I don't believe this is likely to happen anytime soon.
More:
I've seen the claims that Mr Spencer has no qualifications to be talking about Islam repeated often, that is not assassination but fact and one of the reasons why he is of no issue.
.......................................
Like so many Muslims, "Jack Cope" believes that only Muslims are "qualified" to speak about Islam. Actually, this is standard Shari'ah with reference to dhimmis—that no non-Muslim be permitted to discuss Islam, least of all critically.
Too bad we have free speech in the West. Infidels are free to read the Qur'an, and the Hadiths, and the Sira, as well as the words of Islamic clerics, and increasingly we understand a great deal about Islam.
Actually, just seeing the unending stream of Muslim brutality in the news is all too instructive. The whitewash about the "Religion of Peace" is becoming less plausible to the world at large all the time.
More:
Regardless very few if any scholar would give the opinion that becuase Muhammad married a 9 year old, Muslims in this day and age should. In fact, the opposite is said.
.......................................
Ludicrous. Even if you choose to dismiss the actions of the Ayatollah Khomeini due to his being a hated Shia, there is the grim spectacle of underage "marriage" all over the Muslim world.
There have been recent high-profile cases of child marriage in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen—Sunni majority all. Islamic clerics have resisted setting minimum ages for marriage. And why? Because the "Prophet" Muhammed consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was a little nine-year-old child.
Claiming this vile incident has no application in the modern world is simply false—little girls are suffering all over the Muslim world—and, increasingly in the West, where sufficient numbers of Muslims gather, as well. Child marriage has now become a big issue in Britain, for instance.
Jack Cope, replying to CGW:
Wonderful... but might I suggest a more useful and constructive hobby? And if you are wanting to send me your threat in writing...
There is even a pretty map on there that will get you quite close to where I am were you be wishing to kill me, quite a lot of your mates are wanting to these days.
.......................................
What absolute rot. As several other posters have noted, this is gross projections. CGW was not threatening you.
Mr. Spencer, however, receives explicit death threats on a regular basis from your vicious coreliguonists.
It is Islam that attempts to shut down free speech, and eagerly resorts to violence to do so. Just ask Salman Rushdie, Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks, or Molly Norris.
I think it highly likely we will hear no more from "Jack Cope" on this thread. One of the modus operandi of Muslim trolls is that they hit and run, usually after a final parting statement that conveys that all those who have debated with the troll don't understand the real Islam and that such unenlightened and uninformed people are pretty much deficient across the board.
Well, when accurate refutation fails and a Muslim or a dhimmi apologist for Islam are out of their paucity of tricks and weak arguments, all that's left is demonization. When the demonization stage occurs, you know you've beaten the troll.
Yep, "Jack" just can't "cope" with all the evidence against islam. Like so many other trolls before him, he just tucks his tail between his legs and scurries away.
@gravenimage: "Actually, just seeing the unending stream of Muslim brutality in the news is all too instructive. The whitewash about the "Religion of Peace" is becoming less plausible to the world at large all the time."
Right. It's not what the Islamists say. It's what they do that damns them. Whole world of difference, though to a brain-challenged Muslim they cannot see it and think repeating the same nonsense over and over again will somehow change the facts. Well, we're not convinced of their words of deceits, but totally accept their evil deeds as true. That's the evidence, rest my case.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
Granted that Muhammad was a dummy corporation like William Shakespeare, used as a front for an Apollo Project of writers to hide behind while churning out a ton of lit. to found a New World Order, the real questions are who were they, why did they do it, and how did they pull it off and cover their tracks?
Too bad that Spencer never seems to come to the conclusion that it was JEWS, maybe Arab converts like the Himyarites of Yemen, who were persecuted by the Byzantine Christians so bad that they decided to create a new religion that would turn the polytheistic polygamous Arabs into anti-Christian armies that they could manipulate and hide behind. The Quran shows only a slight knowledge of the Christian Gospels, but a deep knowledge of the Jewish Torah and the Talmud - how else can this be explained except learned Jewish Arabs?
The Quran teaches visceral hatred of Jews. Maybe these Arab Jews decided to give up Judaism too, and generated a cover story about Muhammad's dealings with them to make all Muslims hate real ethnic Jews as much as they did; the upshot of all the stories is that the Jews are dishonest disloyal swine, right? The passages in Genesis knocking Ishmael in favor of Isaac might have been their breaking point, so they decided to create a new third religion that was the nemesis of Christianity and Judaism both - and surprise, it would be run out of Mecca and staffed by descendants of Ishmael. Call me Ishmael, 7th cent. ed.
The recent discovery of early versions of the Quran in Yemen seems to be a clue, don't you think?
Either way, it is a coverup, and it will be impossible to prove it in court, but the official cover story that Muhammad was a real person who talked to Gabriel and flew to heaven on Buraq the ass then single-handedly converted the entire Arabian Peninsula is not believable, so there must be another explanation that is; to believe the official explanation is tantamount to conversion.
The real explanation, however, must also explain where MUSLIMS came from, and how they went from paganism to monotheism and formed fanatical armies that loved death more than life. The mere fact that the Byzantines and Persians had exhausted each other through wars and were both ripe for the picking isn't enough. There were real historical battles that the Muslims won to get the opportunity to take over the territories, and these territories set up mosques and prayed to Allah from the start.
Scope Islam's history free in your browser with the Historyscoper and learn about the Jewish origin theory along with others at:
http://go.to/islamhistory
Huh? Oh man, are you out there. For your sake, I hope you're a comedian. It can be the only sane explanation for what you wrote. And even if so, you need to work on a new act.
TL, the Jews of Yemen got persecuted more by the Ethiopians than by the Byzantines. As for Islam being a Jewish plot to destroy Christians, I'm not buying it for a moment. You'd be wiser to see Christianity as a Jewish plot to destroy paganism. I do--albeit a plot hatched by God himself.
I disagree that the Muslim sources show more knowledge of the Old Testament (as a Christian, this is how I refer to the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim) and Talmud than they do of the New Testament. Every bit of Muhammad's (and unless Robert's book convinces me otherwise, I believe there was a 7th century A.D. Arab leader named Muhammad, who founded Islam) use of Christian and Jewish sources smacks of an uncritical use of traditions, whether orthodox or apocryphal, received by word of mouth, then tinkered with to suit the purposes of someone who probably started out thinking he could unite Jews, Christians, and Arab "God-fearers" (people attracted to one or another of the Abrahamic faiths) into one super-community. As for the later fulminations, this is what happened when Muhammad's originally naive hopes ran up against literate people who probably knew their traditions reasonably well.
"If Muhammad didn't exist, would it be necessary to invent him?"
He didn't and he was - invented. That's how it works.
Battle of Tours wrote:
Right. It's not what the Islamists say. It's what they do that damns them.
................................
Very, very true, BoT. On 9/11, when I saw those planes flying into the Twin Towers, I was 99% sure that the attackers were Muslim.
I hadn't read the Qur'an at the time, and I doubt I had even heard the terms "Hadith" and "Sira".
It would be years before I would benefit from the analysis of Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and other fine anti-Jihadists.
But I knew about the American Embassy bombings in Africa, and the Achille Lauro, and the Beirut barracks bombing, and the long, ugly history of Muslims hijacking planes, and the long, ugly history of Muslim suicide attacks in Israel and on the USS Cole, and I knew about the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
And so—it wasn't hard to figure it out.
"By their fruits you shall know them", indeed.
And Islam's "fruits" could not be more rotten...
Hey…. Jack Cope …. Muhammad's lover…
You are saying '' Muhammad is not the only man who married a 9 year old girl at his time … all men [ sick men ] married young girls at that time [ more like tore up her insides to the point of her inability to have any children]
Listen and listen good muslim Zombi and repeat after me ….
ALL ..MEN... AT …MUHAMMAD'S …TIME …WERE …NOT… I ...REPEAT … NOT …
.PROPHETS …OR … SUPPOSEDLY …PROPHTES …
MUHAMMAD ….* WAS * … … HE CLAIMED … HE IS ….
So you can not bring up, the old excuse '' everybody did it … so why not Muhammad …….Bull
That is a pile of Garbage … and you know it ….. more like Islamic garbage .
Your lies and hypocrisy is sickening …. and as I am ex Muslim women…I am outraged as to how you are excusing Muhammad's shameful action …. shame on you defending that disgusting act …. …..a true prophet in the right true meaning of the word, would and should not done that.
Muhammad was and is shameful ….and he will be shameful forever ….
TL Winslow wrote:
Granted that Muhammad was a dummy corporation like William Shakespeare, used as a front for an Apollo Project of writers to hide behind while churning out a ton of lit. to found a New World Order, the real questions are who were they, why did they do it, and how did they pull it off and cover their tracks?
Too bad that Spencer never seems to come to the conclusion that it was JEWS...
...................................
Maybe that's because that idea is both barmy and very, very ugly.
The idea that the Jews—or JEWS as you so rantingly put it—ginned up some creed that genocidally hated them, then sneakily imposed it on those poor, unwitting Arabs while managing to so cleverly "cover their tracks" that no one would ever be able to figure it out, except for TL Winslow and a few of his buddies...well, that's pretty slick.
And what did these JEWS get out of it? Well, not much. Their Muslim protégés regularly murder them, and want to wipe them off the map.
Not sure what you are about here, except for more nasty, trumped up antisemitic conspiracy theories...
Cope - taquiyya
It really does not matter whether our Jack returns or not. He has refuted Mr Spencer and he will be celebrated for having done this.
What our Jack has said and how he was answered is of minor importance: Robert Spencer stands refuted. This is how the game is played.
"Huh? Oh man, are you out there. For your sake, I hope you're a comedian. It can be the only sane explanation for what you wrote. And even if so, you need to work on a new act."
...that's hilaaarious!!! :-D
Jack Coward ...
New hobby? ...okay that's really funny coming from someone that needs a new religion. And I don't care what muslims think about what's written here. Robert's work is important since it's raising awareness with non-muslims of how evil islam truly is - so more power to him! And many muslims are leaving islam in droves, btw, so good for them.
You're a coward for staying in islam and pushing this evil and vile "religion". Shame on you, coward. Yeah, trying COPING with that fact, Mr Cant-Cope with the truth about islam.
A propos our latest Mohammedan boggart and wannabe dementor.
'Jack Cope' was the name of a British non-Muslim sportsman - a footballer and cricketer (1908-1995
'Jack Cope' was also the nom de plume of South African journalist and novelist Robert Knox (1913 - 1991).
Yes, steffen, Jack did refute Spencer's quoting of Ibn Sa'd showing Muhammad did not regret his activity in battle.
Now we're waiting for Jack to refute our response to his claim that few if any Muslims use the prophetic sunnah to justify underage marriage and pedophilia.
Jackie Boy:
"I've seen the claims that Mr Spencer has no qualifications to be talking about Islam repeated often, that is not assassination but fact and one of the reasons why he is of no issue."
_____________________
Well what are YOUR qualifications, then? Come on - spit 'em out. Your whole pseudo-argument can be proven to hold more water, beyond a doubt, if you do.
What degrees do you hold, for instance, in Islamic Studies or Islamic Jurisprudence?
You keep talking about "your work". Let's see it then, and give us your credentials, or just be quiet, Mohammedist.
I know your type, Mr. Cope, and you haven't convinced nor fooled anyone here.
"Yes, steffen, Jack did refute Spencer's quoting of Ibn Sa'd showing Muhammad did not regret his activity in battle."
Where? I don't see any refutation. I see in another place an Arabic text quoted and translated. That doesn't explain why the Muslim translators and publishers of the English edition of Ibn Sa'd got this passage wrong, if they did. It is possible that the Arabic text quoted and translated there is not the one from Ibn Sa'd.
It is interesting that this alleged mistranslation is ascribed to my supposed "Islamophobia," when in fact I am working from a Muslim text translated by Muslims for Muslims.
Nothing has been refuted at all.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
@ Jack Cope
What is it with your and your Muslim friends' obsession with being qualified?
Shakespeare wasn't qualified to write plays, your prophet Mohammed qualified himself, if you see what I mean, and Obama has no qualification(s) to be President of the USA. Einstein had no qualification to be a mathematical wonder, Arnold Shwarzenegger has no qualification to be a movie star (clearly!), and Joe DiMaggio had no qualification to be a baseball star.
We live in a meritocracy! You become what you are by what you do, and whether you do it well.
So, my question for you is: What qualifications do *you* have to question Mr Spencer's depth of knowledge of Islam and the integrity of what he writes?
You're a clown!
JihadBob wrote, replying to Steffen Larsen:
Yes, steffen, Jack did refute Spencer's quoting of Ibn Sa'd showing Muhammad did not regret his activity in battle.
Now we're waiting for Jack to refute our response to his claim that few if any Muslims use the prophetic sunnah to justify underage marriage and pedophilia.
...............................
Jihad Bob, I believe Steffen meant that "Jack Cope" can now brag to his cronies over at LoonWatch that he has "refuted" Robert Spencer.
That he did no such thing in any objective manner will not matter to these useful idiots—his very act of holding forth on this thread will stand, in their minds, as "refutation" enough.
This is what Steffen meant, I believe, when he said this:
"What our Jack has said and how he was answered is of minor importance: Robert Spencer stands refuted. This is how the game is played."
That is indeed "the game"—vacuous as it is.
Meanwhile, apologists like "Jack Cope"—I wonder what his Muslim name is?—sneer at the whole idea of a Jihad threat, while the world burns in the name of Islam.
By the way, I ran across "Jack Cope's" blog:
http://thepenofawanderingstranger.com/personal/
Apparently he is a Brit who now lives in Malaysia, which he claims is "a more developed country than the US".
He claims—predictably for a Muslim apologist—that most Muslim countries are not practicing real Islam. If they were practicing this elusive faith, everything would be hunky-dory. sarc/off
He minimizes the importance of the Muslim bombing of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, chalking the fire bombing up to the actions of "a hot head".
He spends some time sneering at apostate Shakila, who posts as "The Liberated One".
It's by no means the ugliest Muslim blog I've seen, but it is full of smug whitewash and Taqiyya.
His natterings can be found all over LoonWatch, of course, and it looks as though he has spent some time bothering Sheik Yer'mami, as well.
I'm sorry, Mr Spencer: I'm afraid I started this by writing "refute" without quotation marks, as pointed out by gravenimage.
All too often we see claims of "Robert Spencer refuted!", "Ibn Warraq refuted!", "Wafa Sultan refuted!". And it is nothing of the kind except disagreement loudly expressed.
You expressed it beautifully, gravenimage. Thanks, I'll see to it that I weigh my words and meanings more carefully when I put them through my inner translator.
Re the tracks of our condescending Jack: it's a nice find! Thanks again.
Is Jack Cope recycled ex-poster "Abdullah Mikail"? Maybe; if not, then they could be twins. They both claimed to have the same special insider information to allah as if non-muslims cannot read and understand the quran and hadiths, etc. That is such malarkey one can only laugh at these liars.
My apologies. I usually pick up on the satire members here frequently express.
And of course Jack didn't refute Spencer on the issue of Muhammad not regretting his time as a warrior. He fled that just like he did the topic of pedophilia and underage marriage.
I also see no one has responded on the other website since Spencer quoted Ibn Sa'd. Doing so would expose the other author's wikipedia scholarship. It's quite funny when the "refutation" gets refuted.
But Jack did indeed brag about his contributions in this thread to his fellow travelers from the other website. That's actually the reason why I started posting in this thread. Thanks Jack!
It just goes to show how weak their arguments and convictions really are. They need the moderators on the other website to censor and block posters not toting their party line. We see how quickly Jack Cope is KO'd when he doesn't have that nice cushion to dampen the blows to his intellect when his beliefs are challenged.
Jack did indeed brag
LOL, did he now! Well, it comes as no surprise.
graven was right as usual, poor "Jack" was a drive-by. Most mahoundians can't handle even a fraction of the heat here at JW, and he has bailed like the cowardly apologist he is.
On to the next troll!
Hi Jihad Bob, Steffen Larsen, CGW, and Champ!
Steffen, I knew just what you meant. It can sometimes be difficult to "read" sarcasm and the use of irony online, though.
Jihad Bob wrote:
But Jack did indeed brag about his contributions in this thread to his fellow travelers from the other website. That's actually the reason why I started posting in this thread. Thanks Jack!
...................................
I cracked up when I read this! It comes as absolutely *no surprise*, Jihad Bob. Thanks for following it up.
Champ, as for "Jack Cope" being Abdullah Mikail—I think they represent the same *type* of Muslim apologist, rather than actually being the same person.
Abdullah Mikail claimed to be an American "revert" living in Texas (if I remember correctly), while "Jack Cope" styles himself a Brit now living in Malaysia, one of the marginally less hideous reaches of Dar-al-Islam—although it is getting worse all the time with the "Islamist" revival.
These guys aren't the "frothing at the mouth" Jihadists, and they are relatively articulate—but they are *still* can't debate logically.
They are smug Muslim supremacists, who snicker at the very idea of Islam being dangerous. They hope they can embarrass anti-Jihadists into silence, by implying that concern over Jihad and Shari'ah are in some manner "unsophisticated".
Generally they either side-step the issue of Jihad terror all together, or else minimize its importance as something a tiny handful of poorly educated "misunderstanders"—to use Robert Spencer's wry turn of phrase—indulge in.
Ultimately, though, I believe these Muslim apologists have much the same goals as their wild-eyed Jihadist brethren: Muslim supremacy and the imposition of Shari'ah.
They just seem—superficially—more plausibly civilized in the process.