Debate tonight: Robert Spencer vs. Mubin Shaikh on whether the Qur'an teaches warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers

He will probably claim that everything Robert thinks he knows is taken out of context...and he will clear up all those misconceptions by providing context...That's been tried before and it never works very well...

"professor Public Safety and Police Studies" isn't that something akin to having the fox guard the hen house?
May the Lord bless you Robert, mighty warrior, and defeat the beast(Satan-the author of Islam)with the words of the Holy Spirit.

Another interesting debate but it is already lost in the sense that historically,MAINSTREAM Islam has always taught to wage war against us.

For example the most brilliant Muslim intellectual of his time who is also the Founder of Sociology,Ibn Khaldun also said that Islam taught to wage war against infidels

Read:

"Ibn Khaldun(1332-1406),Muslim and Founder of Sociology,and in Favor of Imperialism and Colonialism in the Name of Islam"

http://www.antisharia.com/2013/01/03/ibn-khaldun1332-1406muslim-and-founder-of-sociologyand-in-favor-of-imperialism-and-colonialism-in-the-name-of-islam/

AND ALSO

"The Best Book in Slovenian Literature,”Alamut”(1938),by Vladimir Bartol,is about the Assasins,the Second Terrorist Group in Islam’s History"

http://www.antisharia.com/2013/02/17/the-best-book-in-slovenian-literaturealamut1938by-vladimir-bartolis-about-the-assasinsthe-second-terrorist-group-in-islams-history/

Islamists and public safety? is this a joke?
m

As others here have noted, this fellow is a "Professor of Public Safety and Police Studies" at Seneca College. And as others have done, I also wonder what this person's qualifications in public and police studoies are. Did he ever work as a first responder? Or is he more interested in keeping tabs of the latest standard operating procedures for first responders, for reasons of his own of course?

It has been my observation that there has been a demographic shift in faculty populations of late, appearing to result in a rapid increase in faculty members of Islamic background. I hasten to add that I have no hard numbers to back up my observation. But it might be worth having a look at. It would amount to putting higher education into a sleeper hold.

This giant hampster will be roadkill when Robert is done with him; gosh I almost feel sorry for him. Almost. Robert will come armed with the truth about islam and company while this mental gymnist only has a peace sign and other lying wonders. Hey he might as well be pictured flipping us off--same thing coming from a mohammedan; since islam is NOT a religion of peace.

Yes, he will claim that everything Robert says is taken out of context. Funny isn't it how every Islamic expert takes everything out of context. Let me see, did the Ayatollah Khomeini take everything out of context? He was no slouch when it came to Islamic study. He claimed to be one of the World's leading experts on the Koran. Has Abu Hamza taken it out of context? What about the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, the government of Saudi Arabia, the government of Iran?
Some of these guys are leading clerics. If they don't understand Islam who does?

Hey guys, when I first saw the picture , I thought he was some rapper dude, Yo Homie!

I hope this Mo-Ham-id freak brings some KY, cause Robert is going to have his way with him and tear him a new one.

He'll be able to fit a whole bundle of explosives in there after this debate, figuratively speaking, of course!!

I can feel, there's going to be a lot of love in the room...

LOL

Mubin will probably take the line that Islam doesn't initiate the aggression, but is simply defending itself, therefore Islam does not advocate warfare and subjugation of the unbeliever, it's the unbeliever that brings it upon themselves.

So, 9/11, for example, was a response to aggression, and so is defense, not aggression, as such.

That sort of slippery stuff!

jake-a-runi | February 20, 2013 12:39 PM

If I were there I'd demand to know why he thought decent atheists should be forced to juxtapose with delusional, homicidal maniacs.

How can anyone who holds make-believe to be real rationally debate anything?

He and every other religionist on the globe are intellectual write-offs.

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)If I were there I'd demand to know why he thought decent atheists should be forced to juxtapose with delusional, homicidal maniacs.

How can anyone who holds make-believe to be real rationally debate anything?

He and every other religionist on the globe are intellectual write-offs.

Ask TYPEPAD why this happens.

I don't know why Mubin Shaikh is being invited to have this discussion on jihad watch.

He misrepresents himself as a Professor when he is not. He doesn't have a PhD, he has a Masters degree from an online University and he isn't a full time instructor at Seneca College. All he does is brag about his experience in espionage and the inside information that he receives. Sounds like a real legitimate guy, doesn't he? lol

According to his twitter Mr Shaihk is a bit offended because of the "outdated picture".

Hey, and Reza Aslan ia there to offer moral support and report on the Newton shooter who "was motivated by Norway's anti-Muslim, Robert Spencer loving mass murderer".

Is Mr Aslan quite right in his head?

"Professor, Public Safety & Police Studies"

My alarm bells are sounding ...

Hopefully there will be a system in place to prevent Mubin from talking/yelling over Robert because this will become his only strategy after Robert hits him with facts and truth. The muslims can't win a debate based on truth, so they try to discredit their opponent and create chaos. With chaos, nobody wins and nobody loses because confusion reins supreme. Good luck Robert cutting through the taqiyya and chaos!!

Speaking of Taqiyya...For those who haven't heard it, here is my song called 'Taqiyya Dance': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe0BNKoGON4

Interesting bio (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mubin-shaikh/)

"Mubin Shaikh was born and raised in Canada and spent his childhood years as an Army Cadet for 5 years. At 19, he became a supporter of the Jihad culture and travelled to Balochistan – the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan where he had a chance encounter with the Taliban in 1995. He was very active in the Muslim community on Muslims and the justice system for years until the 9/11 attacks, which prompted him to travel to Damascus and study Arabic and Islamic Studies. This proper study of Islam made him give up his extremist interpretations.

In addition to extensive travel in the Muslim world, Mubin spent 2 years in Syria and while there travelled to Jordan and then Saudi Arabia for the Hajj. After realizing that the Islamist dream was sham, he returned to Canada and became a “walk-in” for the Canadian Security Intelligence, where he was tasked to infiltrate radical groups. He was also polygraphed to ascertain his loyalty and went on to successfully perform various undercover operations until late 2005, when he traversed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in what is known as the “Toronto 18” homegrown terrorism case.

After the 5 year prosecution involving 4 legal hearings at the Superior Court of Ontario, Shaikh was responsible for the conviction of ELEVEN terrorists, three of whom are now serving life. The entire case with its evidence is avaliable here: http://www3.thestar.com/static/toronto18/index.html

He has since completed a Master of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism (MPICT) through Macquarie University while testifying in one of several legal hearings, as well as competencies in Criminal Investigative Analysis and Criminal Intelligence Analysis and Management from the Toronto Police Service. Through the Canadian Psychological Association, he has completed work in assessing and treating extremists and terrorists and is considered by leading academic experts to be a primary source for the study of radicalization and homegrown terrorism. He has extensive contacts with military, intelligence and law enforcement in North America and Europe.

Mubin will begin Ph.D studies in the Psychology of Terrorism (Liverpool University) starting October 2012. "

Mubin Shaikh is a pro-Sharia activist and a commenter on Loonwatch (he's pro-Loonwatch). He has dismissed Spencer as a "wad," claiming, perhaps more than a year ago, he'd love to debate that "wad" Spencer. He is one of these hard-line pro-Sharia Muslims who claims to oppose "violent extremism" of the al-Qaeda sort. Since then he has however engaged in at least "soft jihad" that we know about--pro-Islam propaganda,anti-non-Muslim propaganda, demographic jihad (having large number of children), etc. Thus, he has at best shifted tactics, still pursuing the same goal of implementing sharia in the West.

He has a previous history that includes at least some desire for participation in terrorist groups. He claims to be reformed. He is one of these Muslim propagandists who claims that Ontarians rejected the official introduction of sharia in 2005 due to "hate" and "racism." In other words, he is another one of these dime-a-dozen lying assholes who refuse to admit that opponents of sharia have any valid points whatsoever.

In my estimation, by taking on Spencer, he is putting on a display and is looking for attention and trying to boost is profile and approval among Muslims. Many Muslims consider him a hypocrite (meaning a false Muslim who will burn in hell) because he spied on and turned over to the RCMP the so-called Toronto 18 terrorists-in-training. But Shaikh's goal was to protect Islam's image and Muslims in Canada, not to defend non-Muslim Canadians.

I haven't met him personally, but from what I've seen, heard, and read of him over the years, he is an egotistical clown who loves attention. He is desperate to appear "hip" and "cool".

Here's an example of the kinds of deception Mubin Shaikh will engage in when he is allowed to talk about what the Quran says or teaches:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/shaikh.html
Mubin Shaikh: "God says in the Qu'ran, you save one life justly it is as if you've saved all of humankind," he said. "I don't need reinterpretations or context. It's straight up. That's it."

Heh, how nice of him to give us the verse snippet "straight up" huh? Just a straight-shooting, honest guy, that Mumin Shaikh. Yes, he doesn't "need" context; the context would be inconvenient for him in that case. The verse is, of course, Quran 5:32, and he cites only a part of it, a part that is so often used to try to fool the non-Muslims. Here's the actual verse, followed by the next (my bold):

Pickthall, 5:32:
"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth."
5:33: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;"

By the way, what's the worst crime according to the Quran? Disbelief in Islam, Allah, Muhammad. Not murder, not rape, not theft. Disbelief in its various forms is the worst crime, and so Muslims are authorized to wage deadly warfare to kill and subjugate non-Muslims, lest they spread their disbelief.

I predict that Mubin Shaikh will not act unhinged and will not try to yell over Spencer or constantly interrupt. He's too image-conscious to fall in to behaviour like that, and he has plenty of experience in interviews. Shaikh wants to appear to be a normal respectable easy-going "cool" guy. He is slick enough that he can probably come out of this looking okay, even though he'll probably lose the debate in terms of substance.

A way to deal with him, if you call in with a question, is to ask him something that puts him in a position where he has to admit that he supports some or other objectionable element of sharia. He can of course evade the question, but the evasion will look obvious.

All you need to know about this guy is that during a TV interview about his aid to the RCMP to expose the T.O.-18 jihad plot to slaughter 10'000 plus civilians for allah he said he had to do it because the mass-slaughter would hurt the image of islam in canada.

OK, think about that. He didn't say it was wrong to slaughter non-muslim canadians for a dispute outside of canada,nor did he find it as pure evil to kill all those people in Toronto. No sir, he made it sound like he didn't condemn it but qualified the slaughter as needing to be stopped just to protect the image of islam.

I've learn how to listen to the jihadists by what they don't say , rather than the taqqiyah rants from the scripted excuses for both Jihad plots stopped and Jihad acts completed.
Being caught means Emtrapment or a "Misunderstander" of the true islam, if they go Jihad like Nidal at Fort Hood, they had a mental illness or are real muslims.

Mubin's motive to stop this Jihad may be to deflect suspicion from himself and buy time for the Grand-Jihad one day.
Even that little weasel Khadr that said he helped the CIA and turned from jihad and his family was in a TV special and opined that he opposed the jihad slaughter in Kenya when he saw that other muslims were being killed.
Translation: I agree with mass slaughters during acts of Jihad ONLY if the victims are just those filthy jews and christians .

Why was Mubin Shaikh on this show?

He is not a real professor and based on his response, he's nothing more than an armchair mullah. Did you hear him? He struggled to respond directly to anything that was said.

I was surprised actually at how dumb he sounded. =/

It's all in the context...and some taqiyya, with a dash of tu quequo, and a few obfuscations on the side...Mubin didn't do so well...

bit boring, mubin seems to misunderstand islam quite a bit, he never got around to explaining what “justice” means did he. Was he getting instruction on what to say over the phone while the camera was off him?

Mubin Shaikh (MS), as I predicted, acted cool for the most part, and lost the debate on substance. His lazy care-free approach to the debate indicated that he didn't really show up in substance, but rather just to engage in posturing.

I think the key point here as Robert emphasized is the existence of offensive jihad. In offensive jihad, as per 9:29 and Islamic law, non-Muslims are fought and subjugated because they are non-Muslims.

MS talked about treaties, about how non-Muslims are only to be fought if they fight Muslims or violate treaties. He neglected to mention that non-Muslims are deemed to have violated Islamic treaties and covenants merely by criticizing or "insulting" Islam and Muhammad in public. Likewise, in Islamic countries today, it is still a criminal offense, in many cases punishable by death, to criticize Islam or Muhammad.

Part of being a non-Muslim is being able to express your views in public. Since Muslims are instructed to apprehend, or fight those non-Muslims who express non-Muslim views in public, then here again we can say that Muslims are authorized by the Quran (and Hadith and Islamic law, which are used to interpret the Quran) to wage war or fight those who are just being non-Muslims.

This issue of free expression is directly and centrally relevant to the question of what is meant by "justice"--a topic which MS refused to define and spell out, though Robert pointed this out repeatedly. In the modern West, for the most part, justice and fairness, etc., mean that people are allowed to express their opinions about religion and religious figures. In Islam, justice means that those who criticize Islam or Muhammad are to be punished severely; the classical sharia penalty, implemented in many Islamic countries today, either officially or by Muslim mobs, is death.

This brings us to 60:8. The verse doesn't say anything about what to do about non-Muslims who criticize or "insult" Islam and Muhammad. 60:2 and 60:13 do give strong hints; the former warns against those who "stretch out their tongues" against Islam and Muslims, while the latter warns against being friendly with those with whom Allah is angry. The Quran indicates that Allah is angry with people who express their disbelief and criticism of Islam publicly (9:30, "Allah himself fights them"; 51:10 "slain be the liars"), since the Quran identifies disbelief, and expression of disbelief, as the worst crime. In addition, 9:12-14 adds to a litany of grievances the problem of those who "assail" Islam with criticism and disapproval, and that non-Muslims who engage in such criticism and disapproval are, according to the context set by the preceding verses, in violation of the treaty (dh-m-m). Muslims are there implored to fight (kill, q-t-l) those critics, and those "heads of disbelief."

MS claimed that the Quran doesn't mention the dhimma or jizya. Of course, it does mention both. MS should know this, in his reference to treaties, verses 9:8 and 9:10 both use dh-m-m for treaty, and war is to be waged against those who violate this dh-m-m treaty. The dhimma as it evolved in Islamic law was based on the Quran and Hadith, especially in reference to the aggressive jihad expeditions to Khaybar and Tabuk. 9:29 also does literally use the term jizya. Since 9:29 further specifies that the defeated People of the Book must feel themselves "subdued," there we can see a clear Islamic basis for the subjugation of the dhimmis under any such "treaty," or pact of surrender, or terms of (Islamically-defined and imposed) peace.

And, as Robert noted, Muslim sects sometimes fight each other, justifying it on the grounds that the other group is guilty of disbelief. Apostasy death penalty, and wars against apostates, constitute further examples of Muslims fighting and killing non-Muslims because they are non-Muslims.

BTW, there's plenty of evidence that Mubin Shaikh is pro-Sharia. He is now claiming that it is "news" to him that he wants to implement sharia, and that comments here (e.g., by me) are "outlandish" for suggesting he wants sharia.

Here's his tweet:
"Mubin Shaikh ‏@PROFofPolicing
@benaace64 @jihadwatchRS - i notice some pretty outlandish comments on the Jihadwatch blog. WOW: I want to implement Shariah? News2me! :p "

I've been following the sharia issue in Ontario for years. There is no question that Shaikh has been an advocate and activist for sharia in Canada:

IN DEPTH: TORONTO BOMB PLOT CASE
Background: Mubin Shaikh
CBC News Online | July 15, 2006
"Mubin Shaikh is an observant Muslim and activist for Shariah law in Ontario."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/shaikh.html

That's according to the CBC, and there are other sources. If that has changed, and he now is either indifferent or opposed to sharia in Western countries such as Canada, then that would be "news" to me. He doesn't actually say that, though. It is due to this kind of deliberate ambiguity on his part that I was hoping he'd be asked directly on the show tonight whether he supported elements of sharia, such as punishment for those who "insult" or lampoon Muhammad. Perhaps I should have called in myself. Maybe next time.

Another tweet:
"Mubin Shaikh ‏@PROFofPolicing
@benaace64 @jihadwatchRS - ONLY viewers/listeners decide - if it were up to Rob and I - we'd both keep claiming victory. :p "

"Rob and I"? So when Shaikh was commenting on Loonwatch or Spencerwatch, he was referring to Spencer as a "wad," and now, after getting some publicity on ABN, he is in a friendly way calling Spencer "Rob"? If this were a genuine change of heart, I'd give credit where it is due. But as I said before, MS is slick and smooth, a phony.

test

As some here have already noted, we have come to know with weary amusement that there will be no surprises from this debate, nothing from Mubin Shaikh that has not been repeated 1,001 times before by Islamopologists (and of course, nothing that is not specious and fallacious).

Years ago, when this millennium was still reeling to a start in the wake of the epochal wake-up call (to which it still has not awoken), these various debates and proclamations by Muslims aroused a vague sense of déjà jihad. Since, however, strictly speaking the various forms of déjà vu are attended by feelings of disoriented bafflement; and since we are now, into this second decade, no longer disoriented or baffled, only weary and jaded from the grim realization that all Muslims lie and mean us harm, the repetitive syndrome they foment is better metaphored by the endless loop of Groundhog Day -- while those whose job it is to inform and protect us remain derelict as they simultaneously bury their heads in the sand whilst playing Whack-a-Mole with the Tiny Minority of Extremists that keep popping up all around the world.

My sincere thanks to those who reported from the debate.

From post above...So when Shaikh was commenting on Loonwatch or Spencerwatch...

Bugs jumped on me at Spencerwatch...If you must visit these sites have your shields up, and wear a plastic suit...

Context...If you must read the ayat before an ayat, and the one after the ayat, to understand the first ayat, then the before and after aysts have to be read also and the ones before and after those, until the entire Quran is contexed...forward and backward from the first ayat in question...A Quran in context is not a holy book, it is a history book, and not a very good one at that...I think the compilers scrambled the ayat eggs deliberately to keep it a holy book and not a history book...
Attempting to put the Quran in context, is a form of warring with Allah...If he wanted a history book, he would have written hadith...

Please record Robert so we can log in and hear in Australia thanks mate.

Well, that was interesting...but not too much.

The only new thing one gets from Mr. Spencer's opponents in these debates consists of new tactics of obfuscation and misdirection. In this case Mubin Shaik decries Spencer's use of selected verses in the Qur'an that preach violence and subjugation of unbelievers as being out of context...all in a debate concerning whether or not the Qur'an instructs violence against and subjugation of non-Mohammedans!

Mubin Shaik's logic went like this: If there is one interpretation out there concerning the selected passages that offers a peaceful interpretation, then this interpretation trumps all other interpretations. If he truly believes his own position on this, then he should be condemning all violent interpretations of the Qur'an. And, as Mr. Spencer noted, Mubin Shaik should take his message to Dar al Islam and insist that they put aside the type of Islam that has been practiced since the time of Mohammed.