Debate video: Robert Spencer vs. Mubin Shaikh on whether the Qur’an teaches war

Last night on ABN. Grab some popcorn and watch the fun.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Tsk, tsk, tsk… this loser doesn’t even have 200 followers on Twitter and he has more than 2000 tweets. Shame on Robert Spencer for giving him airtime, that’s what he wanted, whether is good or bad publicity… it didn’t matter.

  2. says

    The debate topic:

    “The quran teaches warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers”

    And then the moderator explained that Robert will be arguing in the “affirmative” and Mubin will be arguing in the “negative”.

    Conclusion: Robert is right, and Mubin is a lying sack.

    ’nuff said …

    As always, thank you Robert for defending the TRUTH.

  3. says

    Well, as usual, Robert presents facts, and the opposition runs around like a headless chicken…According to Mubin Umar was one swell Caliph and overall good guy…He was actually a brute as were the other ‘Right guided ones’…

  4. says

    Mubin begins by thanking Robert and then he states this:

    “…to begin in the name of the one God of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, muhammad. Peace be upon all the prophets; known and unknown”

    Ok, Jesus is not a mere prophet. Jesus is Divine!

    John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    John 1:14 – “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

    Apparently Mubin does not understand that one day Abraham, Moses, David, muhammah (not a prophet from God), will all bow down to Jesus Christ and proclaim Him as LORD…

    Philippians 2:10-11 – “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

    So for Mubin to mention Jesus among mere prophets is not giving Jesus His proper place among men, since Jesus is God in the flesh! And Jesus rose from the dead and He’s a living God! None of the other men Mubin mentioned have risen from the dead.

    And I wanted to share this wonderful music reflecting on Jesus as LORD …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGBQjaNw5d8

  5. says

    It’s noticeable how English language sites explaining Islam to non-Muslims have passages about justice that are very careful not to mention sharia or Islamic law. I looked through two of them which merely rambled on, citing texts, about the importance of justice in Islam. Only towards the end of a third article on it did I find an oblique reference:
    “Fourteen hundred years ago these commands created a society where rich and poor, friend and foe, Muslim and non-Muslim, the ruler and the ruled, were all treated equally and all of them could count on receiving justice. The qazis (judges) were independent and no one, including the khalifah was above the law. If a dispute arose between the Khalifah and an ordinary person, both had to appear in court and provide their evidence. Islamic history is full of stories of this justice that filled the earth wherever Muslims ruled in their golden era.”
    They know that the word justice has very different connotations in the West and in the Islamic world but it suits Muslims, practicing dawah or seeking to get good press, that Westerners believe the word means the same thing to both.Muslim propagandists (including Mubin) really are slippery customers.

  6. says

    Robert,
    A word of advice if I may.

    I’ve watched you debate several Muslims on this topic, and they all argue the multiplicity of interpretations, with some “bad apples” just reading it wrong. They then turn the debate into a question of personal opinion, inferring that such a debate is subjective and pointless.

    IMO you need to stress WHY so many Muslims are reading it as “fight the unbelievers”, and not “fight in self-defense”. I think you need to ask your opponent why is there so much confusion? Is it not accepted by Muslims that the Quran is easy to understand and complete and perfect and protected from corruption? And is it not accepted that Allah is all-wise and all-knowing? Then how could he write something so ambiguous?

    I think you need to stress that the jihadists have the much sounder argument. They say that Allah knows exactly what he’s doing, and they are reading what’s written clearly in their perfect book. They’ll ask HIM what the heck HE is talking about. It’s not “ambiguous” at all to them.

    I’d ask your opponent which of 2 possible motives he has for saying what he is saying. Is he:
    A) A heretic that’s saying Allah is a doofus and writes confusion instructions, or
    B) Someone trying to deceive the unbelievers about there being a threat.

    I don’t see as there is another possible explanation given what Muslims profess to all believe.

  7. says

    I challenge Mubin Shaikh to come here to this thread to respond to these charges.

    This Mubin Shaikh has gone from frank sharia activist (in 2005) to a smooth liar and propaganda jihadist who still supports sharia (in 2011, and 2013), but who tries now to obfuscate his support for sharia. The “mubin” shaikh is anything but clear.

    Throughout his argument he kept using the standard Islam apologetic ambiguity type of deception by using the word “justice” (and “fairness” etc.) without ever admitting that this means Islamic justice, Islamic law, Islamic codes of conduct, as understood by the 7th/8th century Arab Muslim audience, and eventually understood in classical Islamic law. He, like most Islam apologists, hopes that non-Muslim listeners will fill in the blanks of his omissions with the understanding that “justice” means something like modern Western laws and human rights.

    At no time did he admit that the Quran has anything to say about what justice means, such as imposing the jizya and subjugation on non-Muslims (9:29); or that Muslims are harsh with the unbelievers, but merciful among themselves (48:29, 5:54); or that Muslims should not seek peace when they have the “upper hand” over the non-Muslims (47:35); or that Muslims are bound by divine contract to kill or be killed in the way of Allah (9:111); or that Muslim jihadists can take non-Muslim female captives and slaves and have sex with them (23:1-6, 70:29-30, 4:24); or that expressing “disapproval and criticism” of Islam is considered a treaty violation and grounds for killing the offenders (9:12-14); and so on.

    In a recent tweet, he again employed calculated ambiguity, suggesting that it is surprising (“news”) to him to read the claim, in our comments here, that he supports sharia and wants to see it implemented. Note the ambiguity: He doesn’t actually deny that he still supports sharia. he doesn’t even let on that he was once a sharia activist (circa 2005). When asked directly by Ezra Levant as recently as 2011, whether he supported sharia, Shaikh chose to answer by saying yes, he supports “divine law,” i.e., Islamic law. According to his statements in that interview, he no longer “subscribes” to the project for sharia in Ontario only because (according to him) the Muslim community was “too dysfunctional”. In other words, he wants sharia, but it is impractical or imprudent to press for it at this particular time; Muslims need to improve in some way, and then implement it when they are ready. That’s not a rejection of sharia; it’s simply a claim that it needs to be implemented under proper conditions, whatever those may be (again, he didn’t specify, beyond saying Muslims at this time are “too dysfunctional”–maybe he means they need a better PR campaign).

    Mubin Shaikh is, from what I can see here, a liar of the playing-with-ambiguity sort. He won’t condemn, reject, or oppose sharia, because he in fact supports it and wants to see it implemented eventually. Yet he wants to create the impression in the non-Muslim listener/viewer that he doesn’t accept sharia, that he doesn’t consider sharia to be his idea of “justice”. That is, he’s trying to create a false impression. Now why would he do that? Why would he want others to think he doesn’t want sharia, when in fact he does want it? If you consider his current involvement with academia and the law enforcement and security organizations, it is probably prudent to deflect or deny any hints of support for sharia.

    I’ve discussed the issue of his support for sharia more in the previous thread about this debate:
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/02/debate-tonight-robert-spencer-vs-mubin-shaikh-on-whether-the-quran-teaches-warfare-against-and-subju.html#comment-930722
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/02/debate-tonight-robert-spencer-vs-mubin-shaikh-on-whether-the-quran-teaches-warfare-against-and-subju.html#comment-930824

    Besides being dangerous in the sense of being an obfuscating Islam apologist at a time when it is crucial for the West to get a clear and true understanding of Islam, Mubin Shaikh is dangerous in at least two specific ways, suggested in his statements during this debate:

    1. At approx 4:40 of the above video, he boasted that he was going to be talking with agencies such as the FBI to “correct” the “false intelligence” and “bad intel” that Robert Spencer had given them. In other words, Mubin Shaikh is going to be engaging in propaganda jihad to obscure and deny the Islamic origins and motivations of today’s jihadists, thereby compromising our intelligence and ultimately our safety.

    2. At the end of his statements (approx 1:27:30), after a caller raised the issue of the infamous hadith that declares that the end times won’t happen until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, Mubin Shaikh–after having postured as a level-headed easy-going moderate for the entire show–then endorsed the hadith as a legitimate end times prophesy and admitted that yes, he believes the end times scenario will involve some kind of struggle between the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and that we are living in those days now! Brother against brother, he says, meaning, apparently, the “brother” religions of Abraham (Jews, Christians, Muslims) against each other. The bottom line though, is that he is a Muslim, he endorsed the hadith, which says that Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them. In this case, then, his mask slipped a bit.

    Also note that such an endorsement of such a hadith–not just some cherry-picked nice hadith but rather a particularly nasty and genocidal one–clearly implies that he accepts the Hadith in principle. This again belies the moderate impression he was attempting to cultivate during this debate.

  8. says

    Meryl Petkoff:

    Shame on me? Wow.

    Mubin Shaikh may be little or nothing more than a publicity hound, but his views are the dominant mainstream. It is important to confront them and show how vacuous and dishonest they are.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  9. says

    CornHolio:

    IMO you need to stress WHY so many Muslims are reading it as “fight the unbelievers”, and not “fight in self-defense”. I think you need to ask your opponent why is there so much confusion?

    I did. Watch the whole thing.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  10. says

    Kudos to Robert for stepping into the lion’s den. He did win on points, but it was no knock-out. I attribute that more to the difficulty of a genuine knock-out in a debate over a complex subject with a rich and somewhat contradictory history. Mubin did fail to address many of Robert’s points head on.

    I do wonder if Robert should be more careful about saying there are “no programs” to steer young Muslims away from violent jihad. Surely somebody can come up with some program or other run by somebody or other that purports to do something sorta like that. I suspect that such voices in mosques in the USA are clearly overwhelmed by those of the immigrant imams preaching hatred of the West and the kuffar in general.

    I think it would be interesting to have Mubin and Robert continue this discussion in print. Such a discussion would eventually turn into a book that would engage Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

  11. says

    Robert was knocking it easily out of the park pretty much at will. Sometimes really far out of the park. He massacred Mubin. Robert did the same to the caller who asked about the killing of innocent Palestinians. Robert effortlessly turned the tables 180 degrees on that caller by remonstrating with the caller to speak out against the Palestinians firing rockets from schools resulting in deaths of innocent Palestinian children. My only reservation about Robert’s brilliant performance during the debate was that I think he should have refrained from calling Mubin dishonest (it happened toward the end). Not necessary, and on the whole, I don’t think helpful to Robert’s presentation. Even if the opponent were to behave like an SOB, I don’t think it would help Robert to characterize the opponent as an SOB — except perhaps to those in the audience who already strongly agree with Robert and are rooting and whistling from the bleachers. But for those not yet in the choir, Robert should stick to the debate issues, and leave out comments on the debate opponent’s character. My two cents.

    Mubin seemed like a genuinely nice guy, if not entirely forthcoming all the time — though in debate that is a very common shortcoming.

  12. says

    Kinana,

    I have only now read your two comments. Perhaps I need to change my mind about Mubin, based on the points you make. It would be good to see him come here and respond to your comments.

    But I suppose everyone would then pile on him, which would probably make the prospect unattractive for him.

    Here’s my promise: if Mubin will come here and have a little back and forth with Kinana, I promise to keep out of it and just observe. I hope others will do the same, so it will not be everyone ganging up on Mubin. Just Mubin and Kinana would be very instructive.

  13. says

    “…or that Muslims are bound by divine contract to kill or be killed in the way of Allah (9:111)..”

    I think you meant “to kill AND be killed in the way of Allah”:

    Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph. (Pickthall translation)

    The Arabic:

    …fee sabeeli Allahi fayaqtuloona wayuqtaloona…

    The “wa” in there means “and”. Those “qt” words that look like insect mutations are verbal-noun variations on “kill” (qital).

  14. says

    Robert’s final words to Mubin …

    “The idea that the quran teaches warfare against and subjugation against non-believers is unfortunately all too common in islam; and I challenge you to do something about it instead of demonizing those who are! Thank you.”

    Hear, hear, Robert!

  15. says

    “Mubin seemed like a genuinely nice guy, if not entirely forthcoming all the time…”

    Yes, and that Nazi officer in Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List, taking five from rounding up Jews during Kristallnacht, playing Mozart on a piano he found in one of the apartment rooms vacated by his men, seemed to have such a sensitive soul capable of appreciating the poetry and beauty of great music!

    I.e., I would have hoped that in 2013 we would have moved beyond giving any Muslim the benefit of the doubt — particularly when that benefit is based on outward mannerisms and personality, however “genuine” thay may seem. The bar for Muslims should be set so low, even an eel (or should I say, a snake…?) could not do the Limbo dance under it. Haven’t we experienced the straw that broke the camel’s back from Muslims enough times — whether through their atrocities or through their chicanery — to warrant our demand that they pass through a veritable needle’s eye before meriting our trust?

    Can I get an effing amen?

  16. says

    I’m a lowly know nothing and I have debated Mahoundians much tougher than Mubin and held my own…It’s possible to best a Mahoundian in a debate, but it is not possible to ‘win’ one…
    They will always claim victory, because to do otherwise is apostasy…Mubin will most likely brag about how he shredded Spencer…

  17. says

    I’m going to post this again at the risk of being redudant. For reasons I won’t go into I’m not inclined to leave comments and when I do I don’t come back to see if anybody’s read them. This time I’ll check back and if anybody tells me I’m a pain in the ass I won’t post it again. I guess I’m just stuck on this because of the “Sheikh Humaid” factor and his article on jihad. It just depresses me this insideous article isn’t getting the exposure it deserves. I mean I found it in a Summarized Bukhari I’d ordered so that I could inform myself on this “Islam thing”. I’ve said many times since that “my hair stood on end” as I read the thing. Truly I thought they had mailed me the wrong book! I thought they sent me an edition they usually reserve for their more radical buddies. So help me God I was waiting for someone to contact me and ask for their book back.

    I mean of ALL the “Introductions” they pick to Preface this, “the most authentic and true among the books of the profit”, to promote “the religion of peace”! An article on the Islamic articles of War!!!

    And if that weren’t enough, this article is usually accompanied with a plug by none other than Abdul Malik Mujahid! As sinister a figure as you’ll ever find in the stealth jihad circuit!

    Anyway. I’ll just go ahead and post this. It’s one of my “rants” I write and shoot off randomly to specially chosen Muslims and dhimmis like “the challenge” I’ve included in there. (My own personal “Guerrilla War”. heh-heh.)

    I wish that this comments would allow for my letter to come out as I wrote it. Oh well, maybe they’ll get rid of the “gobbledeegook” in the print function.

    My Thoughts On Jihad

    01/18/13

    There’s a bruhaha over that “myjihad’ thing. Ahmed Rehab from CAIR is sueing Pamella Geller for basically telling the truth. They sure as hell can’t confront her on the issues; they’d end up looking like idiots. There is an all out campaign against anybody who dares tell the truth about Islam. Be it the “Islamophobia” sham. Or the attempts to ban free speech outright, (See UN Res 16/18, the OIC, the Cairo Declaration.), They always take the cowards way out. (See MSA students disrupting lectures on Islam. Or Muslims attacking and actually stoning Christians who dared to merely talk about Christianity at a Muslim Festival.)

    Islamists are scared shitless of any kind of close scrutiny when it comes to their baseless claims of Islam being a religion of peace and especially Islamists long-term goals here in the United States. (See Frank Gaffney’s 10 Course Lecture on the Muslim Brotherhood.)

    Once upon a time, after reading The Haj by Leon Uris and The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright I decided to try to find out what the “Isamic” thing was all about. So I did some research and ordered some books.

    Here are a few of the books:
    Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law
    Sahih al-Bukhari (With Sheikh Humaid’s article on Jihad)
    The Koran: Pickthall
    The Quran: Yusuf Ali: Translated by Prof. Syed Vickar Ahmed
    Holy Qur’an with Commentary: Maulana Muhammad Ali
    The Second Message of Islam by Mahmoud Mohamed Taha

    One of the first things I discovered was that even Taha, whom I call the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam, villifies the Jews. And who justified early jihad and “the use of the sword” by saying that “we may describe it as a surgeon’s lancet and not a butcher’s knife.” I’m sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him.

    Then in, (the “moderate?”) Maulana Muhammad Ali’s “Holy Qur’an and Commentary” I discovered some bald faced lies, infering that Christians and other religions happily “accepted the message of Truth in vast numbers” and “Idolatry was wiped out from the face of the country, while many of the Jews and Christians accepted the Religion of Truth” and “enlightened” the whole world from the East to the West.” (I did’nt see the words “massacre” or “jihad” referenced in the footnotes where I found these quotes. And where ever jihad is mentioned it’s always with a footnote and some happy horseshit about “striving”. It also mentions something, in another footnote, about Islam spreading to every corner of the earth. Which I personally don’t find real comforting.

    What I found most disturbing though, and is the reason I’m commenting, is the Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari I ordered and received in the mail.

    I usually use the term “my hair stood on end” when describing my experience as I read Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on jihad which features prominantly in the book.

    Now let’s pause here a minute.

    I ordered this book from Noorart Inc. A company that sells books online. The book is published by Abdul Malik Mujahid of Sound Vision a multi media Islamist propaganda enterprise. Mujahid is the former president of the Islamic Circle of North Amnerica, an organization which has been directly linked to Al Qaeda. He’s also the publisher of the infamous book, “Commanders of the Muslim Army”. A book promoting jihad.

    You can usually see Mujahid’s “plug” for Humaid’s jihad article whenever you see it online. I won’t waste a lot of time on Mujahid (\muhahid=one who wages jihad). Here’s a link at Creeping Sharia telling you a little bit about him:

    http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/chicago-imam-qital-killing-is-an-essential-element-of-islam/

    Now; in this: the Sahih Al-Bukhari; “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”. A “holy book” placed Right Next to the “holy Qur’an” in every Imam’s or “true believer’s library…

    …of all the articles. Of all the “Introductions” to those wanting to learn about “the religion of peace”. This is the “Ambassador” they pick. (And given its promenence in this volume of Bukhari this article might as well be the Introduction to this book.)

    Let’s repeat how Humaid start’s his article introducing “the religion of peace” to the masses:

    “In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
    THE CALL TO JIHAD (FIGHTING FOR ALLAH’S CAUSE) IN THE QUR’AN”

    And continues:

    Praise be to Allah swt Who has ordained Al-Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah’s Cause):
    1.1. With the heart (intentions or feelings),
    2.2. With the hand (weapons, etc.),
    3.3. With the tongue (speeches, etc., in the Cause of Allah)

    Let’s take this Step by Step

    “Praise be to Allah swt Who has ordained Al-Jihad”

    “(THE HOLY FIGHTING in Allah’s Cause)”

    “FIGHTING” for Allah’s cause. NOT tossing rose petals into the air. NOT sitting on a mountain top contemplating your belly button.

    “holy fighting”

    and below it “1”, “2” and “3” it explains what you are to fight jihad WITH! It doesn’t say jihad has anything to do with “the heart”, or “the hand”, or “the tongue”. It says that you USE These Things in the furtherance of jihad. Just like Humaid says later that you use “planes, tanks and missiles” in the furtherance of jihad.

    You fight/jihad; USING your heart, your hands and your tongue. NOT the other way around. The intentions and feelings aren’t jihad. They are a SUPPLEMENT to jihad/holy fighting. You can “inner struggle” or “good deeds” or STRIVE all you want. But right up top, practically as a Masthead; WTF am I talking about? It IS the frigging masthead:

    “THE CALL TO JIHAD… IS …(FIGHTING FOR ALLAH’S CAUSE)

    “FIGHTING”

    This whole article is about hate. Not love. War. Not peace. Not the spirit of multiculteralism or multi-ethnic harmony. Or anything even close to jihad being an “inner-struggle or self examination. Or ANY kind of soul searching or “striving”. It’s about waging war/jihad on the un-believers and “killing” them. And the next three articles after it? There all about the “unpardonable sin” of being Christian; or a “shirker” a “polytheist”.
    Along with the “hair-raising” part, when I read this article shortly after getting it, I honest to God thought they had made a mistake and sent me a book they usually reserve for their more radical clientel. I was watching the door and listening for the phone for weeks wondering when they were going to call and ask for their book back.

    After I got my wits together I saw what I had im my hands even if other people did not. If there were EVER an “Exhibit A” to refute Muslims claims that Islam is a “religion of peace” this article is that Exhibit A.

    I still pause in wonder thinking, “This is THEIR holy book. This is a book distributed to literally hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people. That is a book they consider second in importance only to the “Holy Qur’an”.

    This would be like ordering an NLT Study Bible and finding exerpts from Hitler’s Mein Kamph as the Introduction. Only this article on jihad by ex chief justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid, is representive of the whole Islamic religion and ideology as illistrated in the book, the Sahih Al-Bukhari.

    I’ll give you just one quote in order to give you the flavor of this “holy book”:

    Bukhari (52:260) Page-613; “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'”
    Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.
    Now at this point you’re probably saying to yourself, “This is just one book. I’m sure this isn’t ‘the law of the land’ where Muslims are concerned”.

    Here’s a link from The Religion of Peace.Com that describes this subject in length:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm

    Which brings me to “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.

    I’ll let the website “Mapping Sharia” do the talking for me. Here some exerpts from:

    http://mappingsharia.com/?page_id=79

    “Even given its age, the Umdat al-Salik, (Reliance of the Traveller), is by no means an irrelevant or outdated document. Certificates of authenticity attest to the translation from the governments of Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia– and the text is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive certification from the most important seat of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, Cairo’s al-Azhar University.”

    “We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’a). ” Al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991)

    In addition to that here are some people who put their personal endorsements at the beginning of the book:

    Dr. Taha Jabir al-‘Alwani, International Institute of Islamic Thought (Herndon, VA; December 1990)

    ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi [stamped] Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha
    Damascus, Syria [April, 1988]

    Nuh ‘Ali Salman [signed] Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces
    Dr. Taha Jabir al-‘Alwani [signed] President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought Member of Islamic Fiqh Academy at Jedda President of the Fiqh Council of North America

    General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed](I think that’s what this says) al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation

    One should really read the book itself and read the actual endorsements.

    Now we come to what jihad means:

    The Reliance of the Traveller P-599

    Chapter O-9.0: Jihad
    (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.
    “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

    The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b-7) is such Koranic verses as:

    1- “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
    2- “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
    3- “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

    and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari (my italics) and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

    “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

    and the hadith reported by Muslim, “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

    “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

    The “greater jihad” is mentioned this one time and is never mentioned again.

    As a matter of fact most Islamic Scholars would probably tell you that this “greater” jihad is one of those “unreliable” hadiths.

    (The reviews on Reliance of the Traveller at Amazon are particularly enlightening.)

    Here’s another little gem from the Traveller:

    “o8.0 APOSTACY FROM ISLAM…. ….When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

    The Traveller is literally filled with quotes like that and worse.

    Back to my Sahih Al-Bukhari and Humaid’s article; This book discusses “martyrdom”… …A LOT! I’ve seen these ridiculous articles saying that “mujahidin” are “seekers of truth”. Read Humaid’s jihad article. Try to picture Humaid’s mujahidin sitting cross legged in a hippie commune holding hands with some Christian, Buddhists and Jews singing Kumbaya or dancing down the street tossing rose petals in the air.

    “The foundation of the military spirit as they say: obedience and military discipline. Allah has gathered these foundations in the Verses of his Book (The Qur’an).”

    And is summed up in the words of Muhammed himself:

    “I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then be martyred and then come back to life again and then be martyred and then come back to life again and then be martyred. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 4 Hadith No. 54

    And when jihad is discussed it’s not in the horses, chariots and spears in ancient history kind of Islam. This is 20th Century Planes, Trains and Automobiles kind of jihad:

    The Muslims were ordered to take all precautions against the enemies of Allah and to get ready against them with all they can of power-because that is the first step for Jihad (fighting) and the supreme way for the defence. To get ready (for Jihad includes various kinds of preparations and weapons [ missiles, artillery, aeroplanes (air force), naval ships (navy and the training of the soldiers in these weapons] are included under (the meaning) of the word “force (i.e land, navy and air-force).”
    I’ve summed all this up in a kind of challenge I’ve sent to dozens of Muslims, incliuding that quack, Dr El-Guidy. Except for a suggestion from Guidy that I read his books I’ve never gotten a response. (And in the spirit of fair play, even though I didn’t read his books I downloaded and read several of his lengthy articles. Or rather rantings. Enough about that.)

    Here’s the challenge:

    If Islam is the religion of peace, where in Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor”? “and good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, (and significance), in a book that’s considered second only to the Koran; My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it’s defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. Also compare Humaid’s “jihad” and Emmet Fox’ Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and compassion.

    Exerpt from “On Jihad” (In my Facebook Notes. See also “Racism Speech):

    Another man, who does have a deserving title in front of his name, is the Reverend Richard Wurmbrand. It’s men like him, and his experiences as a Missionary in Communist Russia, that teach me the differences and the realities of who the legitimate men of God are. A perfect example is the description of the word “martyr” on page eight of his book “Tortured for Christ”:

    “According to the original Greek, “martyr” means “witness”. The writer of Hebrews states that “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [martyrs]” (12:1), and Jesus instructs us in Acts 1:8, “You shall be witnesses [martyrs] to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The New Testament martyr not only personally testified to the truth and power of Jesus Christ, but was instructed to take that witness to others, regardless of the cost. Later in the book of Acts, we read about the stoning of Stephen, making him the first to pay the ultimate price for that witness. It is at this time that the word martyr took on a much stronger meaning as one who not only is a witness but as one who is willing to give his life or to be martyred for that cause.”

    In my copy of Tortured For Christ I’ve got the last four words double underlined; “martyred for that cause”.

    The world over Muslims are murdering Buddhists. And using the word “murder” is putting it kindly. In all of Islamic literature; Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, The Koran and especially Reliance of the Traveller where can you find teachings that would result in the following story?:

    This is from the book “the Wisdom of Forgiveness” by His Holiness the Dalai lama and Victor Chan. Pages 47 and 48:

    “Whenever the Dalai lama talks about forgiveness, he likes to use as an example the story of Lopon-la, a Lhasa monk he knew before the Chinese occupation. ‘After I escaped from Tibet, Lopon-la put in prison by Chinese’, the Dalai Lama told me. ‘he stayed there eighteen years. When he finally free, he came to India. For twenty years, I did not see him. But he seemed the same. Of course looked older. But physically OK. His mind still sharp after so many years in prison. He was still same gentle monk. He told me the Chines forced him to denounce his religion. Thery tortured him many times in prison. I asked him whether he was ever afraid. Lopon-la then told me: ‘Yes, there was one thing I was afraid of. I was afraid I may lose compassion for the Chinese.'”

    I’d like to know, when I look at the pictures of the wild-eyed, frothing at the mouth fanatics in pictures and TV, where is that spirit of love and forgiveness when they’re shouting “alahu-akbar”? I can’t even find it in Taha’s Second Message of Islam. Here’s an exerpt of what I DO find;

    I’ve got a neat little “poster”; one side is a picture of a bunch of screaming, frothing at the mouth Arabs and on the panel beside that a picture of a Jew in a labcoat. The caption below says: “In 2007 Islam and Judaism’s holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days. Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time… ….while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.”

    Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on Jihad should be a discussion all by itself:

    Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah by ‘Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
    http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?category=77&id=129

    Islamophobia: Exposing Malicious Malarkey “3.Why is there a “Book’ of Jihad in each of the four major hadith collections?)
    http://islamophobiaexposed.wordpress.com/tag/reliance-of-the-traveler/

    Islam Exposed (scroll down the article to The Reliance of the Traveller reference.)
    http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

    To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad Stephen Collins Coughlin Major, Military Intelligence, USAR This is the report that every official, at every level of government, is criminally negligent for not reading:
    http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

    Here’s a footnote on the Humaid article: 27 Sheikh “Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, AppendixIII – “The Call to Jihad- (Holy Fighting for Allah in the Qur’an Statement),” located in Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language: A SummarizedVersion of At-Tabari; Al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir with Comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. and commentary by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, (DARUSSALAM: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1995), 963, 964.

    Leave a comment

    Name Email Address URL
    Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)
    I’m going to post this again at the risk of being redudant. For reasons I won’t go into I’m not inclined to leave comments and when I do I don’t come back to see if anybody’s read them. This time I’ll check back and if anybody tells me I’m a pain in the ass I won’t post it again. I guess I’m just stuck on this because of the “Sheikh Humaid” factor and his article on jihad. It just depresses me this insideous article isn’t getting the exposure it deserves. I mean I found it in a Summarized Bukhari I’d ordered so that I could inform myself on this “Islam thing”. I’ve said many times since that “my hair stood on end” as I read the thing. Truly I thought they had mailed me the wrong book! I thought they sent me an edition they usually reserve for their more radical buddies. So help me God I was waiting for someone to contact me and ask for their book back.

    I mean of ALL the “Introductions” they pick to Preface this, “the most authentic and true among the books of the profit”, to promote “the religion of peace”! An article on the Islamic articles of War!!!

    And if that weren’t enough, this article is usually accompanied with a plug by none other than Abdul Malik Mujahid! As sinister a figure as you’ll ever find in the stealth jihad circuit!

    Anyway. I’ll just go ahead and post this. It’s one of my “rants” I write and shoot off randomly to specially chosen Muslims and dhimmis like “the challenge” I’ve included in there. (My own personal “Guerrilla War”. heh-heh.)

    I wish that this comments would allow for my letter to come out as I wrote it. Oh well, maybe they’ll get rid of the “gobbledeegook” in the print function.

    My Thoughts On Jihad

    01/18/13

    There’s a bruhaha over that “myjihad’ thing. Ahmed Rehab from CAIR is sueing Pamella Geller for basically telling the truth. They sure as hell can’t confront her on the issues; they’d end up looking like idiots. There is an all out campaign against anybody who dares tell the truth about Islam. Be it the “Islamophobia” sham. Or the attempts to ban free speech outright, (See UN Res 16/18, the OIC, the Cairo Declaration.), They always take the cowards way out. (See MSA students disrupting lectures on Islam. Or Muslims attacking and actually stoning Christians who dared to merely talk about Christianity at a Muslim Festival.)

    Islamists are scared shitless of any kind of close scrutiny when it comes to their baseless claims of Islam being a religion of peace and especially Islamists long-term goals here in the United States. (See Frank Gaffney’s 10 Course Lecture on the Muslim Brotherhood.)

    Once upon a time, after reading The Haj by Leon Uris and The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright I decided to try to find out what the “Isamic” thing was all about. So I did some research and ordered some books.

    Here are a few of the books:
    Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law
    Sahih al-Bukhari (With Sheikh Humaid’s article on Jihad)
    The Koran: Pickthall
    The Quran: Yusuf Ali: Translated by Prof. Syed Vickar Ahmed
    Holy Qur’an with Commentary: Maulana Muhammad Ali
    The Second Message of Islam by Mahmoud Mohamed Taha

    One of the first things I discovered was that even Taha, whom I call the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam, villifies the Jews. And who justified early jihad and “the use of the sword” by saying that “we may describe it as a surgeon’s lancet and not a butcher’s knife.” I’m sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him.

    Then in, (the “moderate?”) Maulana Muhammad Ali’s “Holy Qur’an and Commentary” I discovered some bald faced lies, infering that Christians and other religions happily “accepted the message of Truth in vast numbers” and “Idolatry was wiped out from the face of the country, while many of the Jews and Christians accepted the Religion of Truth” and “enlightened” the whole world from the East to the West.” (I did’nt see the words “massacre” or “jihad” referenced in the footnotes where I found these quotes. And where ever jihad is mentioned it’s always with a footnote and some happy horseshit about “striving”. It also mentions something, in another footnote, about Islam spreading to every corner of the earth. Which I personally don’t find real comforting.

    What I found most disturbing though, and is the reason I’m commenting, is the Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari I ordered and received in the mail.

    I usually use the term “my hair stood on end” when describing my experience as I read Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on jihad which features prominantly in the book.

    Now let’s pause here a minute.

    I ordered this book from Noorart Inc. A company that sells books online. The book is published by Abdul Malik Mujahid of Sound Vision a multi media Islamist propaganda enterprise. Mujahid is the former president of the Islamic Circle of North Amnerica, an organization which has been directly linked to Al Qaeda. He’s also the publisher of the infamous book, “Commanders of the Muslim Army”. A book promoting jihad.

    You can usually see Mujahid’s “plug” for Humaid’s jihad article whenever you see it online. I won’t waste a lot of time on Mujahid (\muhahid=one who wages jihad). Here’s a link at Creeping Sharia telling you a little bit about him:

    http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/chicago-imam-qital-killing-is-an-essential-element-of-islam/

    Now; in this: the Sahih Al-Bukhari; “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”. A “holy book” placed Right Next to the “holy Qur’an” in every Imam’s or “true believer’s library…

    …of all the articles. Of all the “Introductions” to those wanting to learn about “the religion of peace”. This is the “Ambassador” they pick. (And given its promenence in this volume of Bukhari this article might as well be the Introduction to this book.)

    Let’s repeat how Humaid start’s his article introducing “the religion of peace” to the masses:

    “In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
    THE CALL TO JIHAD (FIGHTING FOR ALLAH’S CAUSE) IN THE QUR’AN”

    And continues:

    Praise be to Allah swt Who has ordained Al-Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah’s Cause):
    1.1. With the heart (intentions or feelings),
    2.2. With the hand (weapons, etc.),
    3.3. With the tongue (speeches, etc., in the Cause of Allah)

    Let’s take this Step by Step

    “Praise be to Allah swt Who has ordained Al-Jihad”

    “(THE HOLY FIGHTING in Allah’s Cause)”

    “FIGHTING” for Allah’s cause. NOT tossing rose petals into the air. NOT sitting on a mountain top contemplating your belly button.

    “holy fighting”

    and below it “1”, “2” and “3” it explains what you are to fight jihad WITH! It doesn’t say jihad has anything to do with “the heart”, or “the hand”, or “the tongue”. It says that you USE These Things in the furtherance of jihad. Just like Humaid says later that you use “planes, tanks and missiles” in the furtherance of jihad.

    You fight/jihad; USING your heart, your hands and your tongue. NOT the other way around. The intentions and feelings aren’t jihad. They are a SUPPLEMENT to jihad/holy fighting. You can “inner struggle” or “good deeds” or STRIVE all you want. But right up top, practically as a Masthead; WTF am I talking about? It IS the frigging masthead:

    “THE CALL TO JIHAD… IS …(FIGHTING FOR ALLAH’S CAUSE)

    “FIGHTING”

    This whole article is about hate. Not love. War. Not peace. Not the spirit of multiculteralism or multi-ethnic harmony. Or anything even close to jihad being an “inner-struggle or self examination. Or ANY kind of soul searching or “striving”. It’s about waging war/jihad on the un-believers and “killing” them. And the next three articles after it? There all about the “unpardonable sin” of being Christian; or a “shirker” a “polytheist”.
    Along with the “hair-raising” part, when I read this article shortly after getting it, I honest to God thought they had made a mistake and sent me a book they usually reserve for their more radical clientel. I was watching the door and listening for the phone for weeks wondering when they were going to call and ask for their book back.

    After I got my wits together I saw what I had im my hands even if other people did not. If there were EVER an “Exhibit A” to refute Muslims claims that Islam is a “religion of peace” this article is that Exhibit A.

    I still pause in wonder thinking, “This is THEIR holy book. This is a book distributed to literally hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people. That is a book they consider second in importance only to the “Holy Qur’an”.

    This would be like ordering an NLT Study Bible and finding exerpts from Hitler’s Mein Kamph as the Introduction. Only this article on jihad by ex chief justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid, is representive of the whole Islamic religion and ideology as illistrated in the book, the Sahih Al-Bukhari.

    I’ll give you just one quote in order to give you the flavor of this “holy book”:

    Bukhari (52:260) Page-613; “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'”
    Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.
    Now at this point you’re probably saying to yourself, “This is just one book. I’m sure this isn’t ‘the law of the land’ where Muslims are concerned”.

    Here’s a link from The Religion of Peace.Com that describes this subject in length:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm

    Which brings me to “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.

    I’ll let the website “Mapping Sharia” do the talking for me. Here some exerpts from:

    http://mappingsharia.com/?page_id=79

    “Even given its age, the Umdat al-Salik, (Reliance of the Traveller), is by no means an irrelevant or outdated document. Certificates of authenticity attest to the translation from the governments of Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia– and the text is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive certification from the most important seat of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, Cairo’s al-Azhar University.”

    “We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’a). ” Al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991)

    In addition to that here are some people who put their personal endorsements at the beginning of the book:

    Dr. Taha Jabir al-‘Alwani, International Institute of Islamic Thought (Herndon, VA; December 1990)

    ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi [stamped] Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha
    Damascus, Syria [April, 1988]

    Nuh ‘Ali Salman [signed] Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces
    Dr. Taha Jabir al-‘Alwani [signed] President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought Member of Islamic Fiqh Academy at Jedda President of the Fiqh Council of North America

    General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed](I think that’s what this says) al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation

    One should really read the book itself and read the actual endorsements.

    Now we come to what jihad means:

    The Reliance of the Traveller P-599

    Chapter O-9.0: Jihad
    (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.
    “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

    The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b-7) is such Koranic verses as:

    1- “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
    2- “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
    3- “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

    and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari (my italics) and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

    “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

    and the hadith reported by Muslim, “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

    “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

    The “greater jihad” is mentioned this one time and is never mentioned again.

    As a matter of fact most Islamic Scholars would probably tell you that this “greater” jihad is one of those “unreliable” hadiths.

    (The reviews on Reliance of the Traveller at Amazon are particularly enlightening.)

    Here’s another little gem from the Traveller:

    “o8.0 APOSTACY FROM ISLAM…. ….When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

    The Traveller is literally filled with quotes like that and worse.

    Back to my Sahih Al-Bukhari and Humaid’s article; This book discusses “martyrdom”… …A LOT! I’ve seen these ridiculous articles saying that “mujahidin” are “seekers of truth”. Read Humaid’s jihad article. Try to picture Humaid’s mujahidin sitting cross legged in a hippie commune holding hands with some Christian, Buddhists and Jews singing Kumbaya or dancing down the street tossing rose petals in the air.

    “The foundation of the military spirit as they say: obedience and military discipline. Allah has gathered these foundations in the Verses of his Book (The Qur’an).”

    And is summed up in the words of Muhammed himself:

    “I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then be martyred and then come back to life again and then be martyred and then come back to life again and then be martyred. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 4 Hadith No. 54

    And when jihad is discussed it’s not in the horses, chariots and spears in ancient history kind of Islam. This is 20th Century Planes, Trains and Automobiles kind of jihad:

    The Muslims were ordered to take all precautions against the enemies of Allah and to get ready against them with all they can of power-because that is the first step for Jihad (fighting) and the supreme way for the defence. To get ready (for Jihad includes various kinds of preparations and weapons [ missiles, artillery, aeroplanes (air force), naval ships (navy and the training of the soldiers in these weapons] are included under (the meaning) of the word “force (i.e land, navy and air-force).”
    I’ve summed all this up in a kind of challenge I’ve sent to dozens of Muslims, incliuding that quack, Dr El-Guidy. Except for a suggestion from Guidy that I read his books I’ve never gotten a response. (And in the spirit of fair play, even though I didn’t read his books I downloaded and read several of his lengthy articles. Or rather rantings. Enough about that.)

    Here’s the challenge:

    If Islam is the religion of peace, where in Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor”? “and good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, (and significance), in a book that’s considered second only to the Koran; My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it’s defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. Also compare Humaid’s “jihad” and Emmet Fox’ Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and compassion.

    Exerpt from “On Jihad” (In my Facebook Notes. See also “Racism Speech):

    Another man, who does have a deserving title in front of his name, is the Reverend Richard Wurmbrand. It’s men like him, and his experiences as a Missionary in Communist Russia, that teach me the differences and the realities of who the legitimate men of God are. A perfect example is the description of the word “martyr” on page eight of his book “Tortured for Christ”:

    “According to the original Greek, “martyr” means “witness”. The writer of Hebrews states that “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [martyrs]” (12:1), and Jesus instructs us in Acts 1:8, “You shall be witnesses [martyrs] to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The New Testament martyr not only personally testified to the truth and power of Jesus Christ, but was instructed to take that witness to others, regardless of the cost. Later in the book of Acts, we read about the stoning of Stephen, making him the first to pay the ultimate price for that witness. It is at this time that the word martyr took on a much stronger meaning as one who not only is a witness but as one who is willing to give his life or to be martyred for that cause.”

    In my copy of Tortured For Christ I’ve got the last four words double underlined; “martyred for that cause”.

    The world over Muslims are murdering Buddhists. And using the word “murder” is putting it kindly. In all of Islamic literature; Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, The Koran and especially Reliance of the Traveller where can you find teachings that would result in the following story?:

    This is from the book “the Wisdom of Forgiveness” by His Holiness the Dalai lama and Victor Chan. Pages 47 and 48:

    “Whenever the Dalai lama talks about forgiveness, he likes to use as an example the story of Lopon-la, a Lhasa monk he knew before the Chinese occupation. ‘After I escaped from Tibet, Lopon-la put in prison by Chinese’, the Dalai Lama told me. ‘he stayed there eighteen years. When he finally free, he came to India. For twenty years, I did not see him. But he seemed the same. Of course looked older. But physically OK. His mind still sharp after so many years in prison. He was still same gentle monk. He told me the Chines forced him to denounce his religion. Thery tortured him many times in prison. I asked him whether he was ever afraid. Lopon-la then told me: ‘Yes, there was one thing I was afraid of. I was afraid I may lose compassion for the Chinese.'”

    I’d like to know, when I look at the pictures of the wild-eyed, frothing at the mouth fanatics in pictures and TV, where is that spirit of love and forgiveness when they’re shouting “alahu-akbar”? I can’t even find it in Taha’s Second Message of Islam. Here’s an exerpt of what I DO find;

    I’ve got a neat little “poster”; one side is a picture of a bunch of screaming, frothing at the mouth Arabs and on the panel beside that a picture of a Jew in a labcoat. The caption below says: “In 2007 Islam and Judaism’s holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days. Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time… ….while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.”

    Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on Jihad should be a discussion all by itself:

    Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah by ‘Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
    http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?category=77&id=129

    Islamophobia: Exposing Malicious Malarkey “3.Why is there a “Book’ of Jihad in each of the four major hadith collections?)
    http://islamophobiaexposed.wordpress.com/tag/reliance-of-the-traveler/

    Islam Exposed (scroll down the article to The Reliance of the Traveller reference.)
    http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

    To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad Stephen Collins Coughlin Major, Military Intelligence, USAR This is the report that every official, at every level of government, is criminally negligent for not reading:
    http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

    Here’s a footnote on the Humaid article: 27 Sheikh “Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, AppendixIII – “The Call to Jihad- (Holy Fighting for Allah in the Qur’an Statement),” located in Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language: A SummarizedVersion of At-Tabari; Al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir with Comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. and commentary by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, (DARUSSALAM: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1995), 963, 964.

  18. says

    As is always the case Muslims always fail to get into a ‘nitty gritty’ debate. Avoidance of giving straight answers is the order of the day. Just like lefty  liberals/marxists.

  19. says

    Robert you crushed that clown !

    I was almost embarrassed for him !

    He was factually wrong stating you brushed all Muslims with the same brush ! Totally false !

    It scares me that he teaches in Canada !
    He only has to look at Islamic countries to see the truth. I care more about today not the past !
    His point about the USA always at war is very simple to understand ! Take away the aggressors like comunists & Islamics & the US is not at war ! They were dragged into the WW11 by the Nazis & Japan .

  20. says

    I suppose another nuance in Koran 9:111 is that the Mohammedan warrior should try to fight unto the death, but will merit Paradise if by circumstances out of his control he manages at least to kill Infidels but does not die himself in the process.

    It’s kind of a grotesquely twisted mirror-image of the traditional Christian concern that the Christian martyr not actively seek out his martyrdom at the hands of the Roman praetor or the Muslim qadi (or the pre-Muslim Persian kshatriya) but only unflinchingly accept it as the consequence of his unwillingness to hide and/or renounce his Christian faith.

    “Fascinating stuff.”

    And Islamic clerics and scholars actually have conferences or issue elaborately detailed juridical renderings (fatwas) — in this century, not the 12th — where they go into the minutiae of how and when to kill us.

    As did — to adduce one example from hundreds one could pluck from a keffiyeh — that Billy Graham of the Muslim world (apologies to the Most Reverend), the massively and globally popular Sheikh Qaradawi in a conference of hideous scholars in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2003; or as did the Syrian Muslim scholar Sheikh Al-Tartusi (living in London until he recently joined the jihad in his home country); on which, incidentally, Qaradawi also weighed in — not to condemn as outrageously scandalous and unacceptable, of course, but simply to tweak and fine-tune with that sociopathic Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder typical of the Muslim mind (see my essay Two more Arabic words to learn from the global insane asylum called Islam for more details).

  21. says

    Just finished watching the video. It was interesting to watch Robert paint Mubin tighter and tighter into a corner until the paintbrush was sweeping across Mubin’s toes.

    Robert wiped the floor with this clown!

  22. says

    It took me a couple of days to get through this for time-constraint reasons. Ultimately Shaikh’s arguments were all wordy examples of the same pathetic deceptions we’ve always heard – “out of context,” “different interpretations,” “Muslims doing violence is a recent phenomenon due to Western aggression,” etc.

    These types get so predictable.

    Glad abrogation was addressed by a questioner. A bit more on the Hadiths would have been nice. Also, we need to cease ceding the silly term “Palestinian’ to our opponents. And Shaikh totally dodged that last very good question about the killing of Jews being an inherent part of Islam’s end-times.

    The female moderator is improving as a broadcaster. She’s getting more expressive and smiling more.

    Also, is Mubin Hispanic?

    Overall, very good job Robert. (Styling light-blue tie on light-blue shirt, btw. I may have to copy that one.)

  23. says

    It’s amazing that any time Robert takes the lead in these debates the Muslim quickly resorts to a smear campaign and attacks Robert who only repeats why Imams have said or what the Quran has written in it.

    Makes you wonder where the hell on Earth is the REAL Quran because no matter what RS cites it’s always “Out of context” or out dated because the verse was for that era.

    Mubin pretends to be ignorant about CAIR and yet he knows damn well who Dr.Sheema Khan is because he and her crusaded for Shariah law in canada while he dressed his wife in that Bee-Keeper outfit just like the saudi’s force on their females.
    I don’t trust him, he allowed a few small fish to get caught as to earn the trust of the RCMP, but when the islamist population get large enough to start their jihad and terrorism, he’ll be right in there and know all the people to arrest or have beheaded.

  24. says

    “1. At approx 4:40 of the above video, he boasted that he was going to be talking with agencies such as the FBI to “correct” the “false intelligence” and “bad intel” that Robert Spencer had given them.”

    In fact, the precise word Mubin Shaikh uses there is “dismantle,” as in dismantle the “false” information that Robert Spencer has given the FBI. “Dismantle” is rather more ambitious and hostile than “correct”.

    Another creepy thing in Mubin Shaikh’s statements was at about 6:10 ish, where he comments on a Jihadwatch commenter who said that a Muslim advising our security agencies is like a fox guarding the henhouse, to which Mubin Shaikh jokingly replied “What can I say? I like chicken.” Creepy, because he is implying, in the joke, that he intends to harm (devour) the people he’s supposed to protect. I know; it’s supposed to be a joke. But, if you’re a security person, you don’t joke about stuff like this. So, while we may speculate about the possible underlying psychological motives that would lead to such an odd choice of joke, one thing is clear: If you are serious about security, you don’t joke about harming those whom you purport to protect.

  25. says

    Did you notice that he also didn’t answer the question the guy asked in Arabic? Apparently the guy asked him a straight “yes or no” question in Arabic….and he never answered as far as I know. Did I miss something because I’m not sure that the question was even translated?

  26. says

    Even though I personally don’t believe Jesus is divine I can never accept and now laugh at the idea that this man who preached peace and tolerance could ever have been a prophet of Islam the idea that Jesus and Muhammad are in the same line as messengers is just ridiculous. I have no doubt that if all the prophets were in front of Muhammad that they would reject him and even stone him just like the people of Taif did.

    Dose the Koran teach warfare hmm let’s see Surah 2:216 ”Fighting is prescribed for you yet ye dislike it? But is it possible that ye can dislike that which is good for you?, Allah knows all that is good for you and you not”, Surah 4:76 ”Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah”, Surah 9:29” Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the last day nor have forbidden that which Allah and his messenger have forbidden even if they are the people of the book until they have paid the Jizya out of hand and feel themselves utterly subdued” In addition of course it is Ijma of all the classical scholars that it is a duty for every able bodied Muslim to fight the disbelievers until Islam prevails against all other faiths. There can never be peace in the world as long as Islam remains a powerful religion this is the sad truth my advise to everyone here as an ex Muslim is not to trust any Muslims who can honestly speak proudly of their religion.

  27. says

    “…the idea that Jesus and Muhammad are in the same line as messengers is just ridiculous.”

    It is ridiculous. Hearing Mubin mention muhammad’s name along with other truly Godly men is like hearing Hitler’s name mentioned at the end of a list of well respected world leaders. Your mind suddenly screeches to a halt as you think–hey, what’s HIS name doing there?! …and Hitler was practically an angel compared to evil muhammad (perdition be upon him).

  28. says

    “I have only now read your two comments. Perhaps I need to change my mind about Mubin, based on the points you make.”

    traeh,

    Perhaps change your mind about Mubin from what…?

  29. says

    “Mubin seemed like a genuinely nice guy, if not entirely forthcoming all the time…”

    Ahh, but that is precisely the artful trick this slippery snake has learned – is it not?

    A lesson for the rest of us, in the way that Robert carefully teases the Truth out for all to see.

    We will face more like this slimy Mubin character.

    As per Muhammad, “War is deceit”

  30. says

    traeh,

    I think it’s merely a remote possibility that he might engage me here; nevertheless the invitation is there for him to be seen to ignore. From his perspective, I doubt that he has much to gain from trying though. If he’s read what I wrote then he knows I’m going to right away press him on the issues of his support for sharia, whether insulting Muhammad constitutes a violation of the dh-m-m treaty, etc. In short, he knows I’m aiming to expose him if he shows up.

    I think, in retrospect, it was worthwhile for Robert to debate him. Any Islam propagandist who whines that Robert won’t debate him* better be more knowledgeable than the Muslim apologists he’s actually debated thus far, and to my knowledge none of the people who are whining for a debate are as knowledgeable as these apologists that Robert’s already defeated.

    *Or who pretends that Robert won’t debate him, e.g., Danios, who is apparently still hiding under the bed, and who is no doubt still trying to learn the meanings of the words nikah and dhimmi, after having deceived his readers on these basic meanings.

  31. says

    You’ve got the Quran quote right re “and”, but I wasn’t quoting. In my interpretive paraphrase/note I actually meant inclusive or. That’s because it’s understood (according to examples I’ve read in the Hadith) that the jihadist can be rewarded if he (a) kills but isn’t killed [e.g., kills a bunch of infidels but survives many battles and dies due to some natural cause (i.e., is taken by Allah, in the Islamic perspective) such as old age or illness, i.e., is not slain/killed], (b) is killed but doesn’t kill [e.g., a jihadist who tries or sets out to kill infidels but fails and they kill him], and (c) achieves a and b [e.g., a jihadist who kills some infidels but is killed by infidels in the process].

    On a literal use of the and, all Muslims, or at least all able bodied Muslim males of fighting age, would be under divine contract to carry out c; a or b alone would not be enough to fulfill the contract. That doesn’t seem to be the intent behind 9:111.

    There is a sense of the and that could mean something like an inclusive or. For example, to say that the (true) believers as a group slay and are slain could mean that some members slay, others are slain, and some achieve both; hence collectively they slay and are slain, though not every member achieves both. This is the sense of the and, as logically an inclusive or, that I think is appropriate based on the Hadith and on common sense reasoning, so that’s why I used the inclusive or in my note/paraphrase.

    Fascinating stuff.

  32. says

    “I think, in retrospect, it was worthwhile for Robert to debate him.”

    On that point, I would say that Mubin Shaikh’s crowing about how he is going to “dismantle” Robert’s allegedly “bad/false intel” should show to any reasonable individual that MS is not an objective source to be talking to the FBI. In addition, his mask-slip at the end where he started on about the end times scenario in response to the genocidal anti-Jew hadith at least shows he is hostile and perhaps a bit cuckoo–belying the easy-going level-headed persona he is trying to enact.

  33. says

    “Any Islam propagandist who whines that Robert won’t debate him* better be more knowledgeable than the Muslim apologists he’s actually debated thus far…”

    There’s no amount of knowledgeability, however, that a Muslim can have about Islam that will spare him or her from condemnation.

    For an Islamopologist, the only goal of knowledgeability consists in a) having enough to obfuscate the relatively superior knowledgeability of your Islamocritical opponent; or b) having enough to exploit your Islamocritic opponent’s relatively inferior knowledgeability, in order to promote a falsely peaceful bowdlerized Islam.

    For the Muslim defending Islam, there is no third role for knowledge where knowledge is a sincere concern for the truth of love, rather than a crypto-murderous, crypto-supremacist sophistry.

  34. says

    “I think you need to ask your opponent why is there so much confusion? Is it not accepted by Muslims that the Quran is easy to understand and complete and

    “”””perfect and protected from corruption?””””

    And is it not accepted that Allah is all-wise and all-knowing? Then how could he write something so ambiguous?”

    THAT is where you nail em’. Good one! Perfect!

    Indeed; the book that’s suppose to be UNCHANGED and free of corruption.

    WHY the confusion and (another good word) ambiguity?

    Excellent point!

    Yep. You nailed it. Read my preface to my (lengthy) comment and tell me what you think. If you would. I don’t mind being criticized and straitened out. There’s such a thing as “Constructive Criticizm” as opposed to “Negative Criticizm”. (Learned that as a little hooligan in a juvenile youth ranch, heh-heh)And still at 55 I wonder if I’ve grown up.

  35. says

    Larry,

    Thanks for sharing your story on your Learning Curve only a few, it seems, in the West have gone through.

    I’m curious about the Bukhari book you ordered. From the fact one quote you cited was on “Page-613″ it must be a massive tome. I’ve never seen a hard copy of Bukhari, but from what I’ve learned, Bukhari’s hadith is so copious, it runs into multiple volumes, not just one. Is there any indication that the book you purchased is just an abridged selection, rather than the complete corpus?

    (Also, it’s my impression that Bukhari wrote other stuff besides the hadith.)

  36. says

    LemonLime,

    I have the complete, hardbound, 9 volume, Sahih Al-Bukhari collection of Hadith as well as the 7 volume collection of Sahih Muslim.

    I ordered Sahih Al-Bukari from Dar-us-Salam Publications, at a cost of $105.00 (2008). The complete, 7 volume collection of Sahih Muslim can also be had from the same source, for about $25 more. I ordered the two hardbound collections after I discovered that the online source of Hadith that I had been using, was being “washed” to change the wording in order to make it more palatable to Infidels. I like my Islam “nailed down” thank you.

    The “Preface To The New Edition” of Bukhari states (among other things):

    3. “The new edition of this book is in two
    forms:
    a. First form – Summarized
    Sahih Al-Bukhari (Az-Zubaidy)
    At-Tajrid As-Sarih [in one volume]

    b. Second form – Original
    Sahih Al-Bukhari [in nine volumes]

    It would appear that Larry has the First form, single volume edition

  37. says

    Indeed, all else being equal, the more knowledge that a true defender of Islam has of Islam, the more guilty, the more evil, is that defender of Islam.

    Another factor: The more the defender of Islam has been exposed to Western concepts of freedom, equality, fairness, etc., yet persists with his defense of Islam, the more evil is that defender of Islam.

    Yet another factor: Defenders of Islam living in the West have a higher degree of safety for expressing their views than they do in the Islamic world. The greater the extent to which the defender of Islam defends and clings to Islam in spite of a higher degree of safety available for renouncing or abandoning it, the greater the degree of evil and guilt.

    So while people like Qaradawi are highly evil (and dangerous, due to the size of his influence), knowledgeable defenders of Islam in the West may be even more evil and guilty, because they have greater knowledge of, and opportunity and safety in, the West. Likewise for the non-Muslim defenders of Islam in the West.

  38. says

    Yeah, Mubin Shaikh dodged the content of the Arab (probably Arab Christian) speaker’s point, just like he dodged most of the substantive points raised during the debate.

  39. says

    Robert:

    I did watch the whole thing. You did ask why, but as I said he brushed it off with the omnipresent “many different interpretations” dodge, and went on his merry way.

    I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, and I can see that sometimes you have so many arguments, you pretty much have to pick and choose which helpless clay pigeon to aim at, but IMO you should really stress this one.

    I think you really need to hammer this question home:

    “Why or HOW in a perfect book written by a perfect God is something like ‘war against the unbelievers’ so often misinterpreted?”

    Perfect Gods don’t write ambiguous stuff. Therefore, either Allah is not perfect, or something is up. Either Allah is a fraud, or the apologist is playing taqiyya games. There’s no other logical conclusion.

  40. says

    Also, is Mubin Hispanic?

    Arizona Congressional candidate Gabriela Sauceda Mercer — herself a Latina — pointed out the obvious which so many, even in the Counter-Jihad, refuse to acknowledge. Speaking in the context of the problem of immigration from south of the border into America and the fact that, according to a news report from Reuters, “…authorities in the previous year nabbed 25,000 illegal immigrants who were other than Mexican nationals…”, Ms. Mercer said:

    “That includes Chinese, Middle Easterners. If you know Middle Easterners, a lot of them they look Mexican or like a lot of people in South America – dark skin, dark hair, brown eyes, and they mix in…”

    Leave it to a perspicacious Latina to point out what so many whites — even many in the Counter-Jihad — are too obtuse or afraid to notice.

    And Ms. Mercer went on to note another unremarkable fact that, unfortunately, most Westerners — even many in the Counter-Jihad, — haven’t fully digested as they doze pleasantly hitting the snooze alarm on their digital clock still flashing 9:11 —

    “And those people, their only goal in life is to cause harm to the United States, so why do we want them here, either legally or illegally?

  41. says

    Thanks Dave, that’s what I thought. Though I don’t doubt you’re right about the whitewashing of hadith online, there’s plenty of bad stuff to be found even at the Muslim site

    The problem is that the numbering and citation system is so confusing. It seems every time I see the same Bukhari citation in a different place, it has a different number, or volume, or book number; not to mention that sometimes there is no volume number, and/or no book number. I think this reflects the inferiority of Oriental cataloguing of sources in general which I have found in a variety of instances (even with regard to non-Muslim texts) is bewilderingly confusing and seemingly sloppy or maddeningly idiosyncratic from publication to publication (woops, it can’t possibly be cultural inferiority, since all cultures are equal in every capacity…!).