| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Khaleel Mohammed keeps attacking, and I keep responding. There are two salvos from him and two replies from me in this morning's FrontPage. As dreary and dispiriting as all this is, it is important reading. Khaleel criticizes me for not supporting moderates like him. Not to support him is to support the jihadists, goes the trope. There are even some publications that will brook no questioning or criticism of people like Khaleel Mohammed, on the grounds that we must support moderate Muslims.
I am all for supporting moderate Muslims, but I am not for getting my intellectual pocket picked. I don't care one bit about how good any given moderate speaker can make non-Muslims feel about Islam and the war on terror. All I care about is: can this moderate's arguments from the Qur'an and Sunnah convince jihad terrorists to stop waging war in the name of Islam? If it looks as if they can, I will support the moderate wholeheartedly. But if it looks as if they can't, then I wish someone would tell me why such moderates are even worth supporting. Because they oppose terrorism and extremism? Great. So does CAIR and every other Muslim group in the world. Much, much more is needed, and by giving anyone who calls himself a moderate Muslim a free pass, immunity from questioning, a veritable Emperor's-New-Clothes seal of approval, we are making sure we don't get it.
One more time: jihad terrorists use the Qur'an and Sunnah quite effectively all over the world to recruit Muslims to their ranks. Then moderate Muslims come along and tell us that the Qur'an and Sunnah, properly understood, are benign and peaceful. Terrific. Now please convince your coreligionists.
Here is my second and final response to Khaleel Mohammed:
In his latest salvo Khaleel Mohammed continues his increasingly tiresome practice of misrepresenting what I have written and then excoriating me for saying something I did not say. He says that I want “to assume that the names I have mentioned against hadith are the only ones agreeing with me” and asserts that “there are thousands of Malaysian and Indonesia scholars who share my view, as there are in Pakistan and India, and Egypt.” In reality, I never denied any of this. My point was a different one: that his is a minority view, which he now grants. Any attentive reader who has made it this far will recall that I wrote this above, which shows his charge here to be false: “Even a hundred, even a thousand scholars that Khaleel could name who believe that Islam is a new species of Quaker pacifism will not make for a reformation.”Likewise he says that various authorities “are simply recognizing the status of hadith: they are NOT supporting it. Who is trying to mislead whom here?” In fact I cited them only to illustrate the status of hadith, not to claim that they supported this view. In fact, about Asma Barlas I wrote that she “takes issue with ‘a hadith-based interpretation of the Qur’an,’ but she does at least admit that ‘most Muslims view this as the only legitimate way to read the scripture’ — which was my only point in my original article.” Now Khaleel Mohammed says that I am trying to mislead readers by suggesting that these people support the status of hadith — despite the fact that I explicitly said that Asma Barlas does not. Who is trying to mislead whom here, Khaleel?
It’s the same thing with Wael Hallaq: Dr. Mohammed asserted that I should read his work, implying that I hadn’t. In fact I have, so I quoted a pertinent section from his book A History of Islamic Legal Theories. Now this becomes a nefarious attempt on my part, says Khaleel, “perhaps to prove that I did not understand him.” Where did I say he didn’t understand Hallaq? Let him bring his proof if he is truthful. My point in quoting Hallaq was to illustrate the uphill battle that Muslim reformers face — a battle that Khaleel has granted.
As for Hallaq’s statement, which Dr. Mohammed quotes, that Muslim writers “were hardly concerned with searching for pure historical facts” and “what counts is what they thought had taken place,” I discuss this fact in my books Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers. Of course, Dr. Mohammed doesn’t read my work, he just attacks what he likes to pretend I’m saying, so he doesn’t know that. In those books, I discuss the fact that many scholars such as Hallaq and Ignaz Goldziher have done important work in investigating the authenticity of hadith, but that these theories have made little headway in the Islamic world, where ones that are considered authentic are still considered normative by most jurists. If Dr. Mohammed wants on the basis of these investigations to “show the Muslim community that several formulations need be reexamined,” I wish him all success. In my article on Musdah Mulia and subsequently all I have said is that he will face difficulties in doing this. He agrees with this, and yet continues to heap abuse upon me.
One of his principal tactics in doing so is to impugn my knowledge of Islam. This is something he has in common with other Islamic apologists — many of whom have derided me as “ignorant” without ever actually proving me wrong. It generally goes something like this:
Me: The Qur’an teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. You have to know hadith.
Me: The Hadith teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. You have to know Islamic law.
Me: Islamic law teaches violence against unbelievers (with citations).
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. It doesn’t mean that. And Muslims today don’t pay attention to these ancient laws.
Me: Modern-day jihad terrorists cite Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic law to justify violence against unbelievers (with citations).
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. Most Muslims see these things differently.
Me: Great. How will they refute the jihadist exegesis and so end jihadist recruitment among Muslims?
Islamic apologist: You are ignorant. I am not going to speak with you about this any more.
Khaleel Mohammed plays the ignorance card not only by asserting that I have not read books that I have read, but also by assuming that I do not read paragraphs immediately adjacent to ones I quote. Regarding the hadith in which the Muslim prophet Muhammad says that women must cover all but their face and hands, he says of me: “Had he done his research in the original sources, he would have found lo and behold! Abu Daud himself wrote regarding that hadith: ‘Hadha Mursal: Khalid b. Durayk never met Aisha.’ (Sunan Abu Daud, 3: 65; Beirut: Dar al Kutub al ilmiyyah, 1996). As Mr. Spencer also ought to know, a hadith that is considered ‘mursal’ is not considered authentic on its own.”
Thanks for the lesson, Khaleel. That notation is in fact right next to the material I quoted in my edition of Sunan Abu Dawud, and I am well aware of its existence. So why didn’t I tell the world that this was a “mursal” hadith? Let me answer that first by explaining, as you did not do, what a “mursal” hadith is. Mursal means “hurried,” and a mursal hadith is one with a missing link in the chain of transmitters (isnad) between the Prophet and the person reporting the hadith. What is the significance of this broken chain? Not much. There are four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence: the Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi’i, and Hanbali. Malikis and Hanafis accept mursal ahadith without question; some jurists even prefer them to ahadith in which the chain of transmitters is unbroken, because they take the broken link to signify that the one relating the hadith has done his own research and found the hadith to be sound! The Shafi’is accept them if various other conditions are met. Hanbalis accept mursal ahadith if no other material contradicts them — can Khaleel Mohammed produce any that does so in this case? If so, why does no one seem to know about it in Saudi Arabia, where that form of Hanbalism known as Wahhabism holds sway? Abu Dawud himself accepted mursal ahadith as long as no better-attested ahadith contradicted them. Clearly also the testimony of Islamic history and current Islamic practice all over the world, where if women do not cover themselves in this way, hardline Muslims pressure them to do so, indicates that the teaching of this hadith is generally accepted as authentic. So why didn’t I say it was a “mursal” hadith? Because it doesn’t matter: most Muslim scholars accept it.
Why did Khaleel Mohammed not explain all this, but rather make the disingenuous and misleading claim that “a hadith that is considered ‘mursal’ is not considered authentic on its own”? Who is trying to mislead whom here, Khaleel?
Khaleel Mohammed also takes me to task for me dismissing al-Ghazali’s opposition to the Hadith because he approved of the murder of Faraj Foda. “I am not concerned,” huffs Khaleel, “with his views on other subjects. All I wanted to show was that respected figures support what I say ON THE ISSUES I RAISED.” Well, that’s just dandy, Khaleel. Logged and noted: al-Ghazali supports hadith reform. That he also supports murder for blasphemy I do not actually think of as a different subject: it shows that to reform Islam, questioning Hadith is not enough. Much more must be done. Maybe if the great reformer Khaleel Mohammed took a few minutes off from misrepresenting me, he would have time to do the hard work that must be done in other areas.
The rest of it is just more smears. Khaleel says: “The life of my student--and now heroine--Bariza Umar--may be insignificant to Mr. Spencer…” Where has Bariza Umar come up before? Where did I say she or her work was insignificant? Bring your proofs, if you be truthful. I’m just thrilled that “Abdul Aziz Sachedina can have got the attention of Ayatollah Sistani.” Does it really mean that “reformists are succeeding”? I hope so. Maybe Sachedina can get Sistani to drop his classification of unbelievers as unclean, on a par with urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dog, pig, alcoholic liquors, and “the sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat [i.e., unclean things].” You can find that today, Khaleel, on Sistani’s website, www.sistani.org. There is no direct link, but if you go to his site, hit “English,” then “Islamic laws,” and then “Najis [Unclean] Things,” you’ll see it. “Kafir” (unbeliever) is #8, right between “pig” and “alcoholic liquors.” Gee, this reform is going along just swimmingly! Sistani for Nobel!
But of course, Khaleel Mohammed doesn’t mention this little nugget from Sistani. We are just supposed to be content that Sachedina is getting to him. Maybe I only noticed it because, as Khaleel says, I lack “a full understanding of [Islam’s] primary sources.” Yes, indeed. I never did get that secret decoder ring that turns “beat her” (Qur’an 4:34) into “give her a hug.” But Dr. Mohammed says that my attention is wrongly focused: “the best selling status Tim LaHaye's novels that tell of Jesus returning to earth to wipe out all non-Christians shows that before he seeks to remove the mote from the eye of Islam, he should seek to extricate the log from the eye of that which is closer to him.” Tell you what, Khaleel: as soon as Tim LaHaye beheads a non-Christian and Fox News gleefully replays the video, I’ll get right on that.
As for the Qur'an 3:28 and 16:106, which permit duplicity, Mohammed says: “Hmmm. I wonder if Mr. Spencer were able to read those in the original Arabic if he would still hold his position?” He actually has no idea whether or not I can read the Arabic, and to what extent, any more than he knows what books I have or have not read, but that is immaterial: in discussing these before I relied, as I always do, on translations made by Muslims for Muslims. Most often I use those by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall. I suppose those two Muslims didn’t know enough Arabic to render these verses properly?
In any case, Khaleel translates 3:28 as “Let not the believers take the rejectors of faith as protectors instead of (other) believers. Whosoever does so has no connection with God--unless you beware of them fully.” Then he asks: “Where is the duplicity here?” I’ll tell you, Khaleel: it’s in the passage you render as “unless you beware of them fully.” What does this mean? Ibn Kathir renders it as “unless you indeed fear a danger from them.” He explains its meaning this way: believers should not take unbelievers as protectors “except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’”
So now I have invented the idea that Qur’an 3:28 enjoins duplicity, out of “Islamophobia” and ignorance of Arabic? Come on, Khaleel. Who is trying to mislead whom here? Your quarrel is with Ibn Kathir and his ilk, not with me. You are fighting the wrong battle. If you were really committed to Islamic reform, you would join me in combating the ill effects that the violent passages of the Qur’an and Hadith are having in the world today. That you do not do so, and instead expend your energies on inaccurate and disingenuous attacks on me, speaks volumes.
Posted by Robert at May 10, 2005 7:02 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Meaning of phobia (noun)`morbid fear`
I DO NOT fear Islam. I HATE Islam. Why? Because I see it as an evil cult and the worst thing that has happened in this world.
Posted by: hutchrun![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 10, 2005 7:40 AM
That's how it is when one tries to use reason and logic to appeal to superstition.
Posted by: kj at May 10, 2005 7:55 AM
Robert: You cut like a knife in your above debate and commentary. Cheers!
Posted by: dennisw at May 10, 2005 7:57 AM
Morning all!
kj is right- that's why there is such a Massive set of writings explaining Christianity, while islamic apologists can only cry 'ignorance!'
Today’s Extras on Jihad’s 5th Column:
Jihad Jane attacks:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17999
Canada’s islamist defenders:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17998
The new patron of Europe:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17986
*gone* Very busy day ahead!
Posted by: Gary at May 10, 2005 8:09 AM
Bring your proofs if you be truthful -- indeed.
That should be the end of Khaleel Mohammed's short happy career as yet one more "Islamic reformer" (move over, Reza Aslan, Mustafa Akyol, Stephen Schwartz, Kamal Nawash, the excitable Irshad Manji, there's room on the bench right here) -- the "reformers" long on publicity-gathering, media appearances, and support of all kinds (would that JW had 1/100th of what they are taking, or rather raking in).
He has a special shtick, I understand, this K.M. Before audiences at Florida synagogues, he behaves like that character in Dickens who was always saying "I wants to make your flesh creep." He warns them about anti-Jewish sentiments among Muslims. He scares them. They love being scared. He tells them his heart and mind are in the right place, and with the support of people like you, we "reformers" will take back Islam. Or words and sentiments to that effect. The audiences love it. He pockets his speaking fees. Not up in the platitude-and-shallow-plongitude range of Tom Friedman, but nothing to sneeze at if you have arrived from Guiana, and are an Assistant Professor somewhere. America, truly the "goldene medina." And right now, all that Reformation of Islam stuff is hot, hot, hot, and so is that related topic, the War For the Soul of Islam. So shell out money, American infidels, and American government programs of Reach-out and Out-reach to the Muslim world. Shell out money, big foundations -- all to those Muslim Bright Young Things who will most assuredly wish away Hadith and Sira, and some even dare speak of a new reading of the Qur'an. Fat chance. How this will be done, who will do it, and how hundreds of millions of Muslims will be persuaded to accept it is never explained. Which hadith will go? Which passages in the Qur'an, the Word of God, do you think you can excise or interpret away? Which details in the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, do you think can simply be cut out? Aisha? The Banu Qurayza? The Khaybar Oasis attack? The murder of Asma bint Marrwan? Or a hundred others? No can do.
Rattle the isnad-chains that bind you as you wish. Take out your Brooks and Warren, and try to interpret away passages in the Qur'an -- perhaps we can convince all those Believers that it is just mystical poetry, Rumi avant la lettre, or like the Song of Songs. You know, allegories. Like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, or Spenser's Faerie Queen, or medieval debat of The Owl and the Nightingale. Stuff like that.
The plums in the pudding: the snippet of made-up dialogue between Robert and the "reformer"; the mursal hadith discussion, and the reading of Qur'an 3.28. But the whole pudding is so nutritious, that I think I am going to save some, so I can savor it s-l-o-w-l-y.
at May 10, 2005 9:00 AM
Good work Robert! That islamophilic is loosing the debate.
An idea: could any of the jihadwatch/dhimmiwatch editors post dowloadable and printable resources about jihad and dhimmitude to spread in our neibourhood, gas stations, etc? A convenient aspect would be to find them in bussiness card format!
at May 10, 2005 9:21 AM
From Ali Sina at FaithFreedom:
Muhammad:-
Hey people I am a prophet!
People: -
Where are your credentials?
Muhammad: -
Here is a letter that I have written that says I am a prophet.
People: -
But this is your own words.
Muhammad: -
No this is what Allah dictated and I wrote it.
People: -
How can we know you are not lying?
Muhammad: -
You are deaf, dumb and blind and you’ll burn in hellfire. 2.171, 6.39, 8.22, 17.97
Stupid people aka Muslims: -
Whoa! What a convincing argument! We believe.
Muhammad: -
Now let us go and raid merchant caravans.
Muslims: -
But isn’t stealing unethical?
Muhammad: -
No! Because you became poor after following me and are no more working, Allah has given you the right to lay hand on other people’s property. Also they oppressed you. You can kill them. Oppression is worse than killing 2:217 Now let us attack villages without warning and take the population by surprise while they are heedless and their cattle is being watered at places of water. We will kill their fighting men and take their women and children as captives. Remember that the prettiest of the captives is my share. [Bukhari 3.46.717 ]
Muslims: -
But isn’t raping married women sin?
Muhammad: -
No! Incidentally Allah sent me a verse this morning saying it is okay to have sex with your right hand possessions. 4:24 So rape them with clear conscience. But always remember that the prettiest captive belongs to Allah and his messenger. [Bukhari1.8.367]
Also from now on you don’t have to practice coitus interruptus. Go ahead and ejaculate inside your victims "for if any soul is predestined to exist, it will exist". [Bukhari 3.46.718, 5.59.459 Abu Dawood 29.29.32.95, 29.29.32.96]
Islam has always been about attacking and conquering others, enslaving or killing them, and then living off their slave labor, as disguised in pseudo-religious babble to both embolden the believers and fool the non-believer.
Apply the Golden Rule to Islam and treat it and Muslims as it and they would treat you in Saudi Arabia (the epicenter of the disease.)
Posted by: Ethelred at May 10, 2005 9:43 AM
May 10, 2005
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
Iraq now over 100 islamic terrorist DEAD!!!
Another mas grave grave found in Iraq mulsums killed by saddam [ YELLOW COWARD FOUND IN A HOLE DON’T SHOOT I’M A YELLOW COWARD] a mulsum?
More Islamic terrorist killed in Afghan could these be some who were sent by Iran??
Russia has a right to be proud we would not won WW2 without their help and their loses of 26milion killed by the nazis! Putin says that those against us [Russia & USA] now are like the nazis [shria law] Putin is right!!!
Germany [week-end] neo nazis with mulsums march and counter marchers OW OH MY the counter marchers throw fire bombs @ the neo nazis!! Many neo nazis arrested for the nazi sulaute!
Are mulsums causeing the school bus crashes? 2 yesterday one in Fla. And one in Missouri?? And what about the 2 little Girls found in Zion ILL.?????
Very good book I’m reading was written in 1912 by “Rev. J.D. Menezes” “The Life and Religion of Mohammed the Prophet of Arabia” Very good Read!!
Today a meeting with South America and the Arab Leage to set up free trade to be against the USA?? Now why if they are our friends would they do that? Seams Arabs have a lot to do with the killings in South America to the tun of 3500 a year??
North Krea says they are going to do a nuke test I don’t think they really have one? Why not let them shoot their wad? The French did a nuke test while Clinton was President what did that do? Not much that I remember?? I mean if the French can why not the little guy with a bad hair dooo let’s see his wad!!
GOOD Plan to finally remove troops from South Kores and Germany to the tune of 70,000 and that is only after 60 yrs! Why are the Democrats against it the wars have been long over??
In the Neatherland while President Bush was there I saw crosses and Star of Davids 8000 who were killed Freeing them in WW2 and what was this for the people of the neatherlands to call the USA names?? When they[Neatherlands] let the mulsums over come them[Putin says they are worse then the nazis I agree] who will help them?? The Russians or the USA or No One????
Funny how the MSM just doesn’t get it!!
Guy who gave DVD of prison scandal to the MSM is DEAD! David Hackworth
Palis, Jordan, and Israel sign a tready to bring water from the Red Sea? @ a cost of 3.5 billion why does Israel not just bring water from the Med.? Can Israel trust those who want to kill her WOULD WE??
Guy arrested for bank fraud and trying to summgel pakis from Canda into Vermont??
Church fire in Pa.?? HMM I SMELL MULSUMS??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY[FREEDOM] TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
at May 10, 2005 10:06 AM
.” Yes, indeed. I never did get that secret decoder ring that turns “beat her” (Qur’an 4:34) into “give her a hug.”
ROTFL!!!
Gold Star for you today !!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN
at May 10, 2005 10:44 AM
Guys:
Check out the DW posts from yesterday (I haven't checked today's yet). There's a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth muslim poster attempting her own form of jihad with the help of taqiyya and threats. She's actually trying to make us, US afraid! It's hilarious! Go for a laugh - but note that she's afraid to come over to JW and play with the big boys.
The rhetoric is quite instructive as to the muslim mindset (as if we haven't seen it already ad nauseum) although ludicrous.
Posted by: CGW at May 10, 2005 12:20 PM
I know - while we're at it, let's "reform" Nazism, Satanism, and all those other "isms" that we find so abhorrent and detrimental to the advancement of Enlightened Western Civilization.
I'm sure their adherents won't mind.
Posted by: CGW at May 10, 2005 12:45 PM
It would seem that Roberts debate is to enlighten, while Khaleel's is geared more for intellectual masturbation. That is, he gets some kind of perverse or semi perverse benefit from trying to stick it to Robert. But Robert is an adept at bobbing and weaving, so that none of those low blows land anywhere. And his factual/truthful counter punches leave Khaleel dazed and confused...the ref should throw in the white towel...it's clear that Khaleel is to psychologically bruised to continue...
at May 10, 2005 1:03 PM
The distinction between descriptive and normative judgments is a distinction Khaleel Mohammad does NOT understand.
OOOPS...MY FINGER SLIPPED ON THE CAPS KEY.
Posted by: JTF at May 10, 2005 1:59 PM
ALI SINA,
LOVE THAT!
Notice, people, that everything Islam does, from the most ridiculous to the most horrifying, is justified, made morally acceptable, PROVIDED it furthers the fundamental Islamic goal of world conquest.
"World conquest" is the "standard of the good" upon which their moral code is constructed.
A "moral code" is a set of values chosen to guide our thoughts and behaviors (the pivotal word is "chosen").
A valid, reality-derived, objectively demonstrable moral code choses "life" as the "standard of the good" by which we guide our thoughts and behaviors. Those thoughts and behaviors which tend to support life are considered "good," while those thoughts and behaviors which tend to threaten life are considered "bad."
At least, that's OUR moral code, based on many generations of respect for reality.
Islam's moral code is based on a different, and totally invalid "standard of the good." "World conquest" is NOT a valid standard upon which to base a moral code, but it is theirs, and they regard any thought or behavior which tends to support it, including murder and mayhem, as morally correct.
It is the difference in our moral codes that makes it so difficult for so many in the West to understand why they think and behave the way they do. Their code is NOT derived from reality, it is NOT objectively demonstrable, it is NOT valid, so of COURSE it is hard for us to understand!
The clash is a Clash of Values; so long as World Conquest is their fundamental standard of the good, we will be at war with them.
Posted by: cubed
at May 10, 2005 2:03 PM
I experience your frustration Robert every day.I argue with Muslims constantly on another forum.
Their tactics.
l. obfuscate
2. Deny
3. Distort
4. Denigrate
and failing all of that they exhaustively quote the Qur'an (selectively), but that is not a strictly Muslim tactic either.
Their arguments become obtuse and incomprehensible, especially when speaking theologically or quoting Qur'an or ahadith, and their immediate fall back position is to go on the attack, change the subject, by making you (me) the subject.
It is impossible to have a reasoned and polite discourse with Muslims, my experience, as they are aggressive (and why not their's is the perfect ideology, the perfect religion) and the non believer is, by their own definition, ignorant or lying. Kufr means liar.
The problem worsens when after badgering one reads the Qur'an, for it is Islamic ideology that one must know the truth of the Qur'an after it is read, and if one persists in their non belief and obstinacy, then one is indeed a liar and being deliberately deceptive.
There is an illogic here, because Islam denies the concept of free will (Insha'allah, mash'allah) says it all. All is the will of Allah and even the Qur'an states that it is Allah who has sealed the hearts and minds of the non believer.
A rational individual argues from logic, belief is the antithesis of logic.
It is impossible to argue logic with a believer, nothing will dissuade him, and he has the ultimate fall back positions noted above, the best that can be hoped for is that you are able to reach out and touch the bystander.
I think that you do that job quite well.
Posted by: Giaour at May 10, 2005 2:36 PM
EThelred, Ali Sina would be interested in this exchange I had with Muslims yesterday and today.
I asked:
Why do you believe in the Qur'an?
The poster would not answer, but responded with incomprehensible statements and quotes.
I insisted, still no response.
Finally I suggested:
You believe in the Qur'an because it is the word of Allah and you believe it is the word of Allah because it says so in the Qur'an, that is circular reasoning.
At that point an older, wiser Muslim (convert as well) jumped in with this non answer obfuscation
Actually, the reasoning is far easier than this: identical transmission of the Qur'an in such numbers at each succession generation that it is impossible for them the transmitted message to be corrupt, combined with similar transmission of evidentiary miracles confirming that prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Those two things establish the fact that the Qur'an is from God.
To which I responded:
Even accepting your explanation vis a vis isnads (chains) we are still back at square one.You believe in the Qur'an because the Qur'an is the word of god because it says so in the Qur'an is the word of god because it says so in the Qur'an is the word of God because it says so ....
The introduction of the isnads is totally irrelevant as to why one believes the Qur'an in the first place.
This is what I encounter every time I get into a discussion with a Muslim, an obfuscating non answer, a change of subject and usually a change of subject by making me the subject with an attack of insult.
Which is what your antagonist Khaleed does to you Robert
Posted by: Giaour at May 10, 2005 3:29 PM
Hahahaha... great one Ethelred.
Giaour, that circular "reasoning" used by Muslims is the same crap that the xtians use. Attn. Everyone: I am not saying that Christians are "just like" Muslims, so please don't flame me. I am only saying that the impetus is the same.
Posted by: kj at May 10, 2005 3:51 PM
If the Muslims say that the West is at war with Islam, believe them. Why? Because that is the justification they use to support -- or, at least, not condemn -- terror.
The Nazis provide an excellent example. Before WWII ever started, the Nazis portrayed all Germans -- indeed, all "Aryans" -- as "victims" of "decadent" Western civilization (led, of course, by those "decadent" Jews). That "decadent" civilization produced Communism, unrestrained capitalism, monarchy, racial equality and all other slights designed to keep the "Aryan race" down. The only solution was brute force generated by a totalitarian society channelled by an all-powerful leader. Once that brute force took power, it would "redress" all wrongs in the formation of a utopia based on physical perfections.
In Islam's case, that utopia is based on the theological "perfection" of sharia. Moreover, Islam has no single "Fuerher" to speak of. Nevertheless, the parallels are there and just as chilling.
Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at May 10, 2005 3:56 PM
ole - I did not catch this one!
And boy does it look good!
Bye
Be back - with my thoughts - later
{I need time to put them all together]
Posted by: Beth at May 10, 2005 7:05 PM
Joseph D'Hippolito:
In Islam's case, that utopia is based on the theological "perfection" of sharia. Moreover, Islam has no single "Fuerher" to speak of.
Islam has a dead Fuerher named Muhammad and his Mein Kampf is the Koran. His commandments resonate down through the centuries via his manual of Jihad, the Koran. Allah is pure invention to give Muhammad street credibility in the illiterate Muslim world
Posted by: dennisw at May 10, 2005 7:28 PM
A LOVE AFFAIR WITH THE ENEMY?
"Have you ever been curious how the Roman Empire, despite its vast superiority in every area, fell to the barbarians?"
--Yashiko Sagamori
Can you see and draw the parallel?
Read all about it--and see the photograph that appears to seal our fate with a kiss!
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/MysteriesOfTheDeep_eng.html
at May 10, 2005 9:44 PM
Yesterday, on a morning show, there was a segment called "Christians vs. Muslims". Audience and panel stacked with taqiyya-shovelling Muslims and naive Islam-apologist Christians, and some guy pushing his book about Islam. There were two token anti-Islam types in the audience who were barely allowed to speak. One of them commented later the whole show was a snow-job (how right he was!).
One of the taqiyya merchants outright lied about the claim that the Koran preaches death to infidels. Just point blank said 'nowhere in the Koran does it state to kill infidels', after the anti-Islamist said there were 61 entries that said so. Also denied that Muslims were allowed to lie to infidels. There was a move in the discussion to 'ignore the texts' and just concentrate on how our society is so enriched by all these wonderful cultures (gag!).
One of the panel members, George Negus, who's written a book on Islam, claimed that everybody got along so well together for hundreds of years (no mention of jizya of course). He implied that we shouldn't talk about Muslims blowing themselves up, afterall Christians are breaking the 10 Commandments by going to war in Iraq. I can just imagine this book!
This is what's happening, as more and more people get informed about Islam. Yet when it comes time to discuss what they've learned, they're shut down or lied to. And nobody takes the liars to task because the Muslims either get beligerent, interrupt, call you an Islamophobe or a racist or outright threaten your life. Another audience member mentioned how in another interfaith meeting a minister had his life threatened by a Muslim audience member for saying things the Muslim didn't like. Typical. So not only do we have this to deal with, but we've got dumb and naive Christian missionaries and ministers pushing the silly lie that our God's are the same, and that all religions produce extremists and all we have to do is have lots of love-ins and things will be right.
Posted by: feralee at May 11, 2005 12:54 AM
I am working on a page that I plan to post on my site.
Spencer vs. Mohammed
As dreary and dispiriting as all this is, it is important reading.
It is very INTERESTING reading - AND very important.
But I do believe - it can be a lot more interesting.
I've been at this now for at least 9 hours - straight [have to stop - I have to get some rest]
I has to research the Koran - Scriptures and other sources.
It's tedious.
Anyway - for those who are interested in taking a look and possibly adding anything of value - whether it be criticism or something enlightening
Please share!
[It's only half way done though]
http://palestinename.com/blank.htm
Posted by: Beth at May 11, 2005 1:00 AM
Thank you Robert for a very sharp and informative article.Now i know why so many of the muslims i meet are so screwd in thier minds
Posted by: highlander1965 at May 11, 2005 3:15 AM
kj wrote:
"... circular 'reasoning' used by Muslims is the same crap that the xtians use ..."
correction: whereas some not-so-intellectual christians use that "crap", to say that "the christians" do so is very, very far from the truth.
Posted by: fishboy at May 11, 2005 3:26 AM
Fishboy:
Take away "circular reasoning" and there would be no Islamic reasoning at all. (It's all about, "cuz Mohammed sez so")
Posted by: waterdragon52 at May 11, 2005 12:21 PM
Folks - [this was deleted - but I have it saved - as a back up]
On the issue of the Abrahamic texts: yes, it is true that other Abrahamic religions have gotten around problematic verses (of course several scholars reject this--among them Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and Irving Greenberg), and Muslims have not for the most part. That, is precisely the battle of modern Islam. And that is why when people like Spencer seek to deny this occurrence, researchers such as myself take issue. What he ends up doing is aiding the very jihadists against whom he harangues: all they have to do is point out how deep-rooted his anti-Islam disposition and tell the Muslims that he represents western bigotry. {{{Khaleel Mohammed
What he says in his response to Robert Spencer - Is the VERY reason why this HAS TO BE placed upon the table of the United Nations! [less they all be Islamophobes who don't have the stomachs to eat up]
Taking only the words of mere men will keep feeding the mass confusion.
Let us let the Muhammad of the Koran speak - and then you judge for yourselves what he is saying. Because no one has the right to say they are smarter than you are!!! NO ONE!
Khaleel Mohammed writes:
Mulia's position that the hijab is not mandatory is indeed the position of a large majority of women in Indonesia. But Spencer is upset that this woman who IS a scholar of Islam (whether she is a scholar of religion is another matter) should have made such a Qur'anic statement.
Instead he chooses to attack her by talking about the Islamic tradition in which Muhammad supposedly commands that when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her to display anything except her face and hands. This tradition, as indicated by his own phraseology, is just a tradition from the body of literature known as the hadith.
The writings explain themselves; PROOF
From the Koran:
002.078 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.
002.079 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
And because Khaleel Mohammed gets slammed by both Jesus [concerning Christianity] and Muhammad - I will give these ones also:
The New Testament says this:
2Pe 1:20 No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1Jo 2:27 ye need not that any man teach you
Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail
And so - the same command goes for BOTH Islam AND Christianity - that the words of the books - TRUMP ALL!
It is important - because indiscriminate bloodshed [and things MORE DREADFUL - keep reading] is already on its way. Party is over; it is time to Speak Up in protest -
or you can lie down and let it over-come you.
The choice is yours.
Khaleel Mohammed said:
As I have said before on Frontpagemag and elsewhere, this is a source of belief that is very problematic. It does not have the authority of the Qur'an and was made up long after Muhammad died. Musdah Mulia knows this, and for this reason, chose not to even follow this hadith. Now any student of Islam, within the first week, knows the difference between what Muhammad is supposed to have said, and what the Qur'an says. Spencer seeks to hide this issue.
And so you see - Khaleel Mohammed openly admits - that the Koran has all authority.
Then let all of us - let the Muhammad of the Koran decide - who is telling the truth the most - between Khaleel Mohammed and Robert Spencer:
From the Koran:
003.059 O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons when abroad: that is most convenient, that they should be known as such and not molested.
024.031 And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and
'''let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms''''
and not display their ornaments '''''except''''' to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need of women, or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women. [ONLY their family - young children - captive females - and male servants '''''not in any need of women''''']
Do non-Muslims go about in public?
What does the Muhammad of the Koran say? You decide!
Also:
004.015 If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
004.016 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
Same crime - two different punishments
The men are more easily excused.
which brings us right back to Musdah Mulia, exulting that she “blames Muslims, not Islam, for gender inequity”
Keep giving the Koran people - it will destroy itself in a land like America
LISTEN UP AMERICAN WOMEN!!!!!
and read these....
023.056 Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or the captives whom their right hands possess,- for in their case they are free from blame
033.050 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated from Makka with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers at large [ONLY for Muhammad]
033.051 Thou mayest defer the turn of any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose turn thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them
Pay close attention to this following:
033.052 It is not lawful for thee to marry more women after this, nor to change them for other wives, even though their beauty attract thee, ''''except any thy right hand should possess'''' as handmaidens
They are permitted to trade back and forth the ones they took as prisoners of war [after killing their men] - as though they are merchandise for having their way with them. [justifiable mass rape]
The dumbest Americans - are the female Americans - who keep defending Islam.
The American men are to be slaughtered [until the land is thoroughly subdued 008.067 ] and their wives and daughters raped by non-Muslim men - as they please.
Lets go back to Khaleel Mohammed:
The Jewish and '''''Christian women''''' of Muhammad's time wore head coverings
and these also were an indication of demarcation between a slave woman and a free woman. The Qur’an (24:31, 33:59), as any good scholar will tell you, is NOT incipiently ordaining the hijab--but simply telling the women HOW the head covering is to be worn--that it is to be drawn over the breasts. The Qur'an is addressing a society where the head covering is obviously a norm. If time and place have changed, or "if the reason is no longer there, the ruling is obsolete" (in the words of the jurists), then such as Mulia's ilk have the right to view the hijab as no longer needed.
No where does the Koran say: "If time and place have changed, or if the reason is no longer there, the ruling is obsolete"
Islamic 'scholars' may say so - But the Muhammad of the Koran does not.
If so - find Muhammad's words that do say so - and present them.
Otherwise - it is a lie.
And remember:
002.078 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.
002.079 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
Khaleel Mohammed said:
"Christian women .... wore head coverings"
The New Testament will show - that such a thing is not commanded:
In the beginning of this chapter - Paul is repeating some things to the Corinthians - that he was being told about them - fighting over this very tradition - head coverings. And this was the final conclusion:
1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cr 11:15 If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Cr 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. [their fighting over it was worse than if they did or if they didn't. It then becomes a form of idol worship - fearing the tradition more than God Himself]
Back to Khaleel Mohammed:
Did the Qur'an initiate polygamy, or are the verses of the Qur'an meant to LIMIT the number of wives a man may have to four? And did the Qur'an specify that "if you fear that you cannot be just...and you can never be just, then only one"? And did the Jews, Christians and other cultures of seventh century Arabia not practise polygamy?
Polygamy is forbidden to all Christians! - but don't just take my word for it - take the word of Jesus himself:
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The very first Christians appeared in Antioch [not Jerusalem] - and the Law had already been given...
Mat 5:32 But I [Jesus] say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
That is the law of the Christians. IT existed before they did.
Back to Khaleel Mohammed:
Once it can be proven that there is misinformation or a crass ignorance on the part of the author of any article, then reason would dictate that such a person be disregarded as an authority.
Now - armed with these truths - go and tell ALL of your neighbors! and tell them to tell their neighbors - and it will be tedious in getting them to realize what you are telling them. But don't give the fight.
And AFTER enough people find out - maybe they'll get the energy to unite and put it to the U.N. [who has already condemned all who are 'Islamophobics']
And this is the Weapon of all weapons - because it gives The God who condemns ALL FORMS OF HUMAN VIOLENCE - FAR more credibility than 'allah'
Isa 52:15 So shall He sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at Him {and not the mere words of humans]: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. {This is the Lord Who knew to make mention of Palestine for end times.
The Koran NEVER even mentions it - and it should have - because Palestine is a FACT - and it is Islam who is demanding that it be established.
and so...
that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
Isa 14:31 Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times.
Exd 15:14 The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina. {Song of Moses - the saints 'sing' this song} Rev 15:3
If you are wise American women [because actually - the punishment for you is worse than that of your husbands] - you'd see the power THAT PROPHECY has - and you'd get up and Shout!
It makes no difference whether you belong to any non-Muslim religion or none - these truths concern ALL concering the oppression and bloodshed involved.
Posted by: Beth at May 12, 2005 12:05 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)