Robert,

Have you interacted directly with Taheri? Could you have a real debate with him? Would he respond coherently to your post if you asked?

Posted by: kamala at February 12, 2006 9:48 PM

Kamala,

I don't know Taheri. We have some mutual friends, but I have never met him. Of course, I'd be very happy to discuss all this and more with him publicly or privately.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 12, 2006 9:51 PM

i have a request of Hugh Fitzgerald.. an exposition of the concept of causa belli..iranian
prez ahmasomethin..he has said the zionist entity WILL be removed..is he toeing the line?,,if he says WE WILL remove the zionist entity..is that casa belli?'''exposition please, Hugh, of the concept of causa belli..thank you, Sir.

Posted by: hammerhead at February 12, 2006 9:59 PM

"Hijacking rational discussion" sounds like what some of the Muslim apologists who post here under different aliases when it's just the same one.......

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 12, 2006 10:04 PM

Robert,

"Great. But with all this denial and obfuscation..."

It's a lot of work keeping up with it all. There seems to be an endless supply. Thanks for this extensive exposé. "Neo-Islam"--Emperor's New Clothes.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 12, 2006 10:08 PM

This smacks of pure disinformation.

This guy can't be serious.

How did he miss the entire thrust of the Koran as a guidebook for global domination under "the shadow of swords"?

Something smells like putrescent carp.

Hitler was brutally honest in his Mein Kampf.

Mohammad is just as explicit in the Koran.

Why even bother debating such a total b.s. artiste?

Just call it crap and move on.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 12, 2006 10:09 PM

For the past 60 years, the New Tribes Mission, which has its world headquarters in Florida, has been trying to convert indigenous groups in Venezuela to Christianity.
Full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4705740.stm

Posted by: Islam means peace at February 12, 2006 10:16 PM

Profitsbeard:

"Just call it crap and move on."

Sorry. We don't have that luxury these days. Arguments like this are churned out by the pound, and they are influential.

The ones who believe they should not be influential, of which I am one, have to make that case. I have tried to make it here.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 12, 2006 10:20 PM

Taheri:"...neo-Islam — a political movement masquerading as religion...how can those who know little about Islam distinguish it from the mainstream of the faith?"

This myth of separation between Islam and politics has reappeared many times. But Mohammad was a leader of a militant political movement, the Koran says no one may share in Allah's government, all disputes must be referred to Allah and the prophet (or the representatives), and there has been little separation between Islam and politics for most of Islam's history.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 12, 2006 10:35 PM

Mr. Spencer, could you address the comments in the Free Speech and the Climate of Fear thread by "posted by ambrosia" at 603pm where she states that Mohammed never pillaged or asked people to rob or murder Jews or raped women, and the post at 7pm where she states that Asma bint Marwan wasn't a real story but a forged one.
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/010090.php

I would appreciate a clarification for the convert ambrosia.

Posted by: Borg at February 12, 2006 10:41 PM

You nailed it, Archi. The rest is obfuscation and red herrings.

Here's article about the instigator and inventor of 'Koran rage', the one and only "Abu Laban:"

These are splendid times, however, for radicals like Imam Abu Laban and his mosque on the north-western outskirts of Copenhagen. "We don't have to proselytise, the young people are beating a path to our door," he states with satisfaction. "I have to thank the government for its stubbornness." Journalists from all over the world have come to interview him in the squalid, disused industrial facilities where his congregation gathers. Previously they counted no more than a few hundred members. But Abu Laban is now the most sought-after spokesman of the Danish Muslims.

As for the strategists of the Danish People's Party, it is not in his interest for Muslims to start seeing themselves as normal Danes. A Muslim, he explains in a friendly tone, could never be a normal citizen of a Western state. He makes a "security contract" with the secular state, but as a true believer he can never accept secularism – the separation of religion and state. He must always remain loyal to the highest religious law, the Sharia. "We Muslims must use freedom of speech," says the imam, " to the extent that it serves the goals of Islam."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 12, 2006 10:43 PM

Robert, I read the opinion piece today in the post and thought how wrong it was, and wouldn't it be great if it were covered at Jihadwatch.

Thanks so much for excellent commentary, I have learned so much from your clarification of the many false points that Mr Taheri made. It has greatly added to my understanding of the origins of Jihad.

It would be fantastic if the Post reprinted you response.

Articles like the above is one of the reasons that I now trust the New York Sun more in respect to Islam.

Posted by: El Cid at February 12, 2006 10:46 PM

I don't think Amir Taheri will have an answer to these observations so devastatingly offered above. One wonders about Taheri.

After all, he is one of the recognizable good guys among the Musim commentators. He is not a deceiver like Tariq Ramadan. He is not oilily misleading, in the manner of Rami Khouri or Fawaz Gerges or so many others. As an Iranian in exile, he does not have that extra reason -- Arabness, Uruba -- for an ethnically-based loyalty to Islam, or to a mythical Islam. Unlike some of the other "good guys,"the ones you can count on for most, if not all, of the truth, for example Fouad Ajami, Taheri does not avoid the subject of Islam, as Ajami (or Makiya, or others akin to them), so carefully does. And often Taheri makes perfect sense, or quasi-sense, when he doesn't take on the subject of Islam.

In the article published in the Post, however, he has offered a series of untruths and half-truths that have been dissected so unanswerably by Robert. And were there more time and space, Robert might have piled on the passages (but don't fail to click on the link to Desai's Ask-Imam.org, and read the whole answer about slavery in Islam), and to dilate further upon the history of Islam, that would merely make even more devastating the criticism he offers above.

Taheri is one of the three Islamic "experts" counted on by My Weekly Standard, the other two being that admirer of the Shi'a (as being so very different from the bad old Wahhabi-Salafists) Reuel Gerecht, and Stephen Schwartz, who has made a career out of his conversion to Islam, which has apparently made him an automoatic expert on the history of Islam, on the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, on practically everything; his Islam is of the "my-own-private-Islam" variety, and he again locates tehe source of all problems in the followers of Abd-el Wahab, so that for the thousand years before that, apparently Infidels had no problem with Muslims or wise, tolerant, peaceful Islam.

Taheri's article above is disgraceful. To pretend, in particular, that Khomeini was a half-literate, when he was a learned theologian rather than someone to be described as a half-wit, is like those who reduce the behavior of the Germans to that "crazy little man Adolf Hitler" whom "no one" could take seriously. But millions did, and for reasons that need to be examined and remembered. Taheri may believe that the history of Islam in Persia is all the roses and nightingales of Gulistan. If so, he could start with the chronicle of Arakel of Tabriz and read about the forced conversion, overnight, of the Armenians and Jews of Tabriz, ordered by Shah Abbas. Or he could read Mary Boyce on the grim history of the Zoroastrians once Muslims seized control of Iran -- a story brought right up to the present, for Mary Boyce lived with Zoroastrians in Iran in recent decades, and reported on the way they were treated by the Muslims who made their lives so difficult and unpleasant. And if Taheri wanted to find out about the treatment of Jews, not at the hands of the members of the most advanced and westernized Iranian elite in Tehran, but by Muslims in the villages of Iran, he could turn to the study of Lawrence Loeb, who like Mary Boyce lived among those he wrote about, in the 1970s.

It is unpleasant for the "cultural Muslims" to be forced to investigate Islamic history, for it suggests that their own remaining filial piety or defensiveness is itself based on ignorance that is sometimes wilful. The disgraceful part is that Taheri must know better but is in one of those "I just can't face it" moods. This is a phenomenon that visitors to JihadWatch have noticed because of a few steady Muslim posters who vacillate between admission of certain unpleasant facts, and then denial of such facts. It's an astonishing thing for Infidels. We just don't quite know what to make of it.

And that goes for Taheri, as he attempts to attribute to the modern world aspects of Islam that are as old as Islam, and to blame for their existence some sect ("Wahhabis" or "Salafis" will do), or in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Qom-trained ayatollah, who so cunningly manipulated the Western world (especially the French, who gave him refuge at Neauphle-le-chateau), but also managed to fool all those acolytes of Mossadegh who thought that they would use him to help bring down the Shah's regime, when it was he who used them, and then discarded them, and then pursued and persecuted and sometimes murdered them, all for the sake of that Islamic doctrine that he knew, inside and out.

As perhaps Amir Taheri, goodhearted but dangerously misleading Amir Taheri, does not. But one suspects, alas, otherwise -- that Taheri does know, but would prefer not to discuss, not to reveal, not to tell the truth about Islam.

Because if he were to do so, then Infidels would wonder: is he still a Muslim, or isn't he? And if, after all that he were to tell us about Islam, and then he were to refuse to declare himself an ex-Muslim, Infidels would wonder -- how can he tell us these truths about Islam, and still call himself a Muslim? What kind of person can do that?

And what can Taheri do? Can he explain, openly, those considerations -- those smells in the kitchen, that pious grandmother or uncle, the quiet of visiting some celebrated mosque, that all that makes him a "cultural Muslim" and the Islam he knew was "tolerant" -- but the Islam "he knew" was that of a particular time and place, under the two-man Pahlevi dynasty, that was particularly unconcerned with the Infidels, and indeed perfectly willing to treat them as decently as was possible. This happened, of course, in Tehran and not in the villages, where Islam, unsoftened by the polices of a quasi-enlightened despot, still prevailed.

Taheri, therefore, is limited in what he can offer us: a sanitized view of Islam, with a skewed chronology and grossly inadequate descriptions of the problem.

Would that it were merely a problem of "Wahhabis." Would that Ayatollah Khomeini had not been a learned theologian and a masteful politician, but instead, as Taheri would have us believe, merely a half-literate dimwit who somehow managed to overthrow the ruler of a country of 50-60 million, but also to outsmart the very clever Iranian secular and leftist opposition to that same ruler. Kto kogo the Soviets used to say. "Who (will get) whom"? It was Khomeini who got all of those who had thought they would be resurrecting the policies of Mossadegh, and got something quite otherwise.

Taheri, if he reads the criticism above, will have to admit the justice of it - to himself if not to others. But what can he do? Like so many others -- Fouad Ajami, or the smiling Fareed Zakaria -- he also has to think of his career. A declared ex-Muslim does not become, as he should, more valuable to Infidels but rather less so, because he is not listened to, as he should be, with the same respect as defectors from the Soviet Union were listened to during the Cold War. Perhaps that is because so many remain impressed by the word "religion" and distrust those who give up the religion they are born into, as if that itself rendered their opinions on Islam illegitimate.

But Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Azam Kamguian, and others are in fact those who, without having to concoct a false history for Islam, do tell the truths that need to be learned by Infidels, not least in Washington.

Taheri is not exaclty a Pollyanna or a Dr. Feelgood. But unwary Infidels will, if they accept what he writes, still come away with the essential message that it is those who are "perverting" a "noble religion" (perhaps Taheri would leave it at "religion") and whose roots are shallow in Islam, and who furthermore are the uneducated, are all we have to worry about.

In other words, we are told to believe that things nowadays are not as bad as they may appear. For these doctrines we are told about are of recent vintage, or the product of halfwits who have no basis for their views in Qur'an and Hadith, and such things as this this Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb distinction are not to be taken seriously, but are the product of crazed so-called Muslims without any basis in Islamic doctrine or history, who are then taken seriously by excitable Infidels ignorant of Islam, and so it behoves us all, Taheri soothingly tells us, to stop the hysteria on all sides, and see steadily and whole the real Islam. But his "real Islam" is a fiction, a dream palace as dreamy as any of those Fouad Ajami analyzes, or purports to, in his eponymous book. Does Taheri think that most Muslims, long accustomed to the habit of mental submission, and raised up in a system that discourages, at every turn, free and skeptical inquiry, do not think that the essential division oin the world is that which divides Believers from Infidels? Just because he doesn't see things that way, and Ms. Nafisi doesn't, and the late Mr. Hoveyda didn't, and Fouad Ajami doesn't and Kanan Makiya doesn't, and perhaps Shirin Ebadi doesn't, does that give him, or any of the advanced and westernized people who have, especially if they spend decades outside the Muslim lands, come to think and see thinks in a manner less affected by the hothouse irrationality, the conspiracy theories and rumors and internalized distrust of Infidels, that is such a remarkable feature of the world of Islam, so that only remarkable people can slough it all off, and arrive, by themselves, and for themselves, at quite a different way of looking at the world.

All of them nice, soft-spoken, charming people. No doubt far better dinner companions than almost any run-of-the-mill Infidel you are likely to meet. After all, the world of Infidels has its own problems, and isn't so great, but at least has the possibility of individual mental freedom. But so what if these people are charmers and charming? They do no represent Islam. These "cultural Muslims," these "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims must be understood, by the educated and wary Infidel, as the exception, not the rule. And policies cannot be made on the basis of what they, to further the interests of the secularists within Islam, would like the West to do, because just as in Iraq the American policy has in part been manipulated to promote not Infidel interests (which are best furthered by division within Iraq) but the interests of the secular, but of Shi'a background, exiles who helped to inform American policy, including that Light Unto the Muslim Nations policy that makes no sense.

Not the least of the Administration's folly in Iraq was to believe that those Westernized Shi'a who had spent from twenty or thirty to, in Chaalbi's case, forty-five years abroad (he left in 1958 after the coup that overturned the young king and "strongman" Nuri es-Said) were representative of Iraq. No they weren't. al-Hakim is representative; al-Jaafari is representative. Moqtada al-Sadr is representative. Dulaimi is representative. Those semi-Western men and women are not.

No more fooling around. If you can't say something completely truthful, becuase you somehow justify these untruths to yourself as a way to avoid some clash of civlizations, then don't say anything at all. Stick to other things -- for example, write about the malevolent regime in Iran, and what its acquisition of a nuclear bomb would do to the likelihood of its ever being overthrown.

Don't mislead Infidels, even if it is not done for Tariq-Ramadanish reasons, but with the best of intentions. Hell is paved...etc.

Posted by: Hugh at February 12, 2006 10:57 PM

"...an authority on Islamic theology and law, in the Shi'ite holy city of Qom."

I understand it is a necessary convenience to use the word "holy" in describing specific Islamic cities, but it bugs the snot out of this semi-literate.

The generic rendering of "holy" reads "belonging to or associated with Divine Power." The Christian etymology denotes absolute purity, majesty, glory, and truth as relating to God. What exactly is Divine, glorious, pure, or majestic about Mohammad or the wretched legacy he left in his wake? "Holy" city of Qom - give it a rest.

Posted by: Thumper at February 12, 2006 11:18 PM

testing 1,2,3

Posted by: 00Buck at February 12, 2006 11:30 PM

Hugh, nice follow up to Robert's commentary. I hope Amir gets the chance to read your rebuttals and it would be very interesting to hear his reactions to them.

For those who didn't read the NYP source article because you couldn't be bothered registering, try this.

http://www.bugmenot.com/index.php

Just enter the NYPost URL into the box and press "Get Logins".

Posted by: William The Crusader at February 12, 2006 11:39 PM

Mr. Spencer-

I always appreciate your efforts. The criticism was meant as something to be taken after the fact of your analysis.

The candycoaters and sleight-of-handers of Islam can churn out piffle by the peck but it's getting to the point where their propaganda is deserving of only a rubber-stamped footnote, VIZ-

*The information in this article is ignorant of Islam's easily researchable history. I don't know why the author chooses to deceive his audience with transparent falsehoods that are easily debunked. Let anyone concerned with the reality of the issue do the fact checking.

How many times do we have to keep wasting our energy sifting through consciously churned out drivel produced by those who clearly have little respect for the truth, and a contempt for the ability of their readers to do a simple library/internet search into the details of their specious nonsense?

I don't know this guy's other work, but, unless he had a stroke lately, this piece speaks ill of the stability his cortex.

I would simply have written a headline like:

"He must think we cannot."

I like an honest debater, but I've lost patience with these guys who have some kind of hidden agenda and play at being what they aren't.

What's his real wish? To facilitate a kinder, gentler global Islamic Republic?

If not, why does he write this pabulum? -that might be the question to ask him, if you get the chance.

Motives are more important than means, I find.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 13, 2006 12:03 AM

With respect to Taheri's needless insult of Khomeini's character, we ought to take the testimony of one of Islam's worst living enemies, Oriana Fallaci. As a celebrity interviewer, she met Khomeini personally, and she attests that, while she hates everything he stood for and ended up having a slanging match with him, he was one of the few people in power she met who had real stature. And that, I would say, is really the trouble. The influence of the Qur'an is such that a man of character, talent, intellect and willpower who falls under its spell is more likely to turn into a Khomeini than a Beethoven or a Churchill, whatever his original potential may have been. (I do not mention women, because female intellectual leaders are a near-impossibility in Islam.)

As for the general contention, I would go softer on Taheri than you do. True, his historical contention is nonsense, but it could be a useful legend - the foundation legend, say, for that much-desired peaceful moderate Islam, something more like Unitarianism or modern Hebraism - if enough Muslims could be got to believe it. As it is, they only have the choice between accepting the violence of traditional Islam, which many morally upright Muslims really do not like, and dropping out of the Ummah altogether - and nobody likes to leave the community they were born in. Witness all the lunatics like Frances Kissling and "Catholics for a free choice," pretending to be Catholic only because they were born in the Church.

Posted by: Paolo at February 13, 2006 12:05 AM

I've read Taheri over the months and he always has one or two statements in his essays that are patently false. Now, he apparently has entered full blown denial and has choose to invent a history and false facts to back it up. Surely he must know he would be called out on this. I guess he was joking to slide it by. Sad.

Posted by: John Sobieski at February 13, 2006 12:27 AM

I read many of Amir Taheri's articles, and they appear to be trying to force the reader to think for him or herself more then anything else.

Most of them are geared towards making Muslims think, but some are seem to just be written to get Western Readers to do research to find out he is wrong.

He is in my opinion a brilliant man, the world needs more people in favor of individual thought.

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at February 13, 2006 12:58 AM

Paolo-

If it would only work!

I'd take back every mean thought I had about Mr.T.

But the cunning if limited minds of Islamic jurisprudence and exegesis are far ahead of such 'Sufi' tricks.

And they have the Koran while Taheri has only ...The Big Wish (weak sister of The Big Lie).

(An image comes to mind from the 1950's film "War of the Worlds" where a country minister approaches a Martian space craft -with a dangerous looking tenacle periscope- rising up from its crater bed, and the preacher starts quoting the Bible to the machine as he walks toward it. In reply to his "attempt at dialogue" a beam of destructive energy sparks forth and reduces the good-hearted fellow to an outline of ash in the mud. Taheri's effort to co-opt Islam seems just as doomed, for very similar reasons.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 13, 2006 12:59 AM

Hugh! What a rebuttal!

You really grabbed him by the boobooz! (He will never forgive you for that...)

But allow me a tiny correction if I may, You wrote:

"... merely a half-literate dimwit who somehow managed to overthrow the ruler of a country of 50-60 million..."

At the time the Shah was overthrown the population of Iran was a mere 17 to 18 million people. After the mad mullahs got in, they started breeding like rabbits and now they have roughly 70 million.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 13, 2006 1:01 AM

Spencer wrote:

"While Taheri is correct that in the days of Malkam as now, "the overwhelming majority of Muslims didn't know Arabic, and those who did had as much difficulty reading the Koran as an English speaker has with Chaucer," translations abound in all languages. Even though these do not have canonical status alongside the Arabic text, a Muslim leader in any Islamic land would have to be a fool to try to pass off something as in the Qur'an that isn't there."

The majority of Muslims are probably unable to read the Koran. But does not Islamic culture -- through the 1,001 rules and regulations of Sharia, through family and tribal customs, and through the Friday sermons and other public harangues in the marketplace, etc. -- effectively communicate most of the content of the Koran to the unlettered masses? (I'm thinking roughly analogous to the way semi-literate or illiterate Eastern Orthodox peasants basically assimilate the entire Old and New Testaments (+ much of the sayings of the Patres) through simply attending church and hearing the Bible being recited as part of the liturgy cycles + in family and social occasions based on church liturgy.)

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at February 13, 2006 1:24 AM

There are so many problems with Taheri's assessment that it is difficult to know where to begin. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

Islam prides itself on authenticity and certain practices and interpretations within Islam would not survive if they were not deemed authentic by the consensus. Of course there are certain practices that do exist which are inauthentic such as the prostration in front of tombs of saints. However, it should be noted that something such as this which is practiced by Sufi and Shia alike happens only in the remotest of villages and is strongly condemned by the religious authorities and later corrected. The existence of diverse practices in the Islamic world does not necessarily mean that there is a diveristy of thought. These practices are usually said to arise out of ignorance or misinterpretation. Practices are one thing because they can be localized and contained even if the local authorities are not as strict as the imams in Mecca or Qom.

Islamic ideas, however, are an entirely different matter. They must be authentic or else they cannot be allowed to spread because they are universal and if an inauthentic idea is disseminated it can lead the whole ummah to kufr. Taheri's selective history of the origins of "Salafism" and "neo-Islam" thus becomes irrelevant. What Taheri describes as "Salafist" and what al-Kosovi (aka Schwartz) describes as "Wahabbist", eventhough those who adhere to these principles do not use the same labels, is the mainstream in Islam and by its very existence, it is deemed authentic. There are many points of divergence but the bulk of what Salafism and Wahabbism stands for is authenticated by the foundational texts, various Islamic schools, and the most recent fatwas. What the Salafists and Wahabbis believe has been part of Islamic history since its inception and not much has changed since.

Yes, the division of the world between Muslim and infidel is a medieval concept, so what? Which imam or school denies its validity today? Some "moderates" may deny it, but that is not satisfactory because it isn't the "moderates" who have the authority to say what is authentic and inauthentic in Islam. The likes of Taheri, Akyol, al-Kosovi, Aslan, Manji, Ebadi, or Ahmed cannot just waltz into Al-Azhar and tell the imams and teachers there that what they are teaching is inauthentic and that they should focus more on the "tolerant" and "egalitarian" suras instead of the verse of the sword. It simply cannot happen, especially in the current context. The imams know the sources better than these "moderate" Muslims and they can defend them quite well if they are challenged. Hey, whatever happened to that sura battle the moderate imams in Yemen wanted to have with the terrorists? Notice that we do not hear much about how that one turned out, but I digress.

Instead of challenging the ideas of Salafism or neo-Islam, Taheri tries to delegitimize it, especially by pointing to its supposed founders, a freemason and an infidel Armenian. The reason why he does this is because he cannot challenge it on theological, legalistic, or historical grounds. But this Salafism can certainly challenge his views on what Islam ought to be. So he is left in a bind. Instead of admitting that Salafism is on firmer ground than his Islam, he must impugn the proponents of Salafism by labelling Khomeini an idiot and Mawdudi a Marxist and hope that infidel readers (and some moderate Muslims) do not delve a little deeper into the history and theology of "Salafism". Of course that can no longer work. Thanks to the internet and sattelite television, those remote Muslim villagers who did not give much consideration to the significance of the dar-al-harb and jihad because all the people they ever knew were illiterate Muslims such as themselves are now more aware of what these concepts mean and where the enemy lies.

Thus blaming the politicization of Islam on "Salafism" is a red herring. Traditionally, Islam cannot be separated from politics and eventhough Taheri may only see it as a "personal" religion, it is much more. Firstly, it is a communal religion like most religions and secondly it is not a religion in the Western sense, but a way of life and a total regulation of life. Islam can provide everything the secular state can provide and Islamic education is the only type that is worth persuing in the Muslim world since all of the knowledge in the world can be found in the Koran if you look hard enough. If Taheri is not purposely deceiving us, then he is certainly deceiving himself on the matter of Islam.

Posted by: igor at February 13, 2006 1:30 AM

Amir Taheri should be asked to produce the real Koran and traditions.

Then it would be a simple matter for the governments of the world, (and all Islamic countries as well) to order the destruction of all the false "neo-Islamic" copies which are confusing muslims to act violently around the world.

This is a golden oportunity!

Sadly, the reality is that there is only ONE koran, and ONE origional source of the life of Mohammad, his actions and sayings. There are many later "scholars" who took liberty in omitting some of the more disgusting and embarasing hadith, and added their own 'clarification'of others.

Ask 5 Clerics what a sura or hadith means, and you will get 5 different lies, attempts to mask the obvious meaning of

Qur’an 8:59>/b> “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”

Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 13, 2006 1:56 AM

I'd also like to ask Amir Taheri how he gets around Maududi's declaration that-

"The Qur’an - the book he [a rock named allah] gave to mankind - exists in its original text, without a word, syllable or even letter having been changed."

Produce it! Then he can easily prove his claims, and the entire muslim world can reform itself to the "religion of peace" it's supposed to be, rather than the cult of death it has been for the past 1400 years.

Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 13, 2006 2:43 AM

"Holy" city of Qom - give it a rest.
Posted by: Thumper
_____________________________

There isn't a single thing "holy" about that city,(or any Islamic city) unless you count bullet holes in the walls made during drive-by assasinations of evil unveiled women, beer vendors, and followers of Mushaf ‘Uthman.

It's inhabited by terrorists, mullah mobsters, murderers, thieves and thugs raspists and pedophiles- fo;;owers of Mohammad, apostle of a rock.

Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 13, 2006 3:19 AM

"Holy" city of Qom - give it a rest.
Posted by: Thumper
_____________________________

There isn't a single thing "holy" about that city,(or any Islamic city) unless you count bullet holes in the walls made during drive-by assasinations of evil unveiled women, beer vendors, and followers of Mushaf ‘Uthman.

It's inhabited by terrorists, mullah mobsters, murderers, thieves and thugs raspists and pedophiles- followers of Mohammad, apostle of a rock.

Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 13, 2006 3:19 AM

All the flailing attempts by Muslims to "educate" non-Muslims how Islam was "hijacked" begs one huge, itchy questioh --- just HOW does the self-proclaimed "perfect, best, most easy, and most complete" religion end up getting itself hijacked in the first place? After all, wouldn't a "perfect" Allah have installed "perfect" fail-safes in his "perfect" religion to prevent such hijacking in the first place? An airport system that lets a plane be hijacked every 100th flight is hardly the perfect airport system. Neither is a religion that's been hijacked as much as Islam any more perfect. The way Muslims claim other Muslims misquote the Koran, it mirrors how they smugly insist that similar misquotes of the Bible could only lead to one conclusion --- that it's been corrupted. I dunno....seems there's hardly a difference between a religion "hijacked" and a religion "corrupted". 'Tis a quandary for those claiming perfection where there appears to be little of it found....

Posted by: yadayada at February 13, 2006 3:37 AM

I have never heard of a clear and present assimilation of "not-so-free and fearful Moderate Muslims" with an allegiance only to America and one flag, to its laws and Constitution, without having Murder Inc. looking for them.
It is very unlikely to edit the Quran's "perfect infallible words of Mohammed and friends" their so-called words of Allah, to freely Analyze the history and character without a purge, a mass murder, a war, etc.
Saudi's have sanctified this creation, a terrorist manifesto of Mohammed's Allah of the Arab Quran.
Perhaps, in Saudi there may be so-called moderate Muslims that CANNOT be dominated by the sword, that haven't been murdered, or assimilated by more devout Muslim terrorist preaching from the same "absolute words" of The Arab Quran?
All Muslims, I believe, are instructed from birth to death, only Mohammed speaks for Allah and the Quran is the blessings of the Allah of Peace Loving Islam and to India in massive conversions from life to death, leaving millions without their heads.
It is predicated on many contradictions to obfuscate Murder Inc., for it is truly a terrorist manifesto as it continues to purge the world of all nonbelievers/kaffir by using "sanctified Arab traditions" rape, rage, rob, terrorize. Look around you, Islam has managed to just that, to murder continuously for the last 1400 years.

Posted by: SirSeth at February 13, 2006 4:34 AM

Asslamu-laikum all,

I would have loved to be "the fly on the wall" when sura were coming down from the angel gibril.

At the time Allah (swt) was most merciful & just to his childrens by providing success and justice while still making time to pass additional suras to Mohd (pbuh).

The initial suras were peaceful...(even the odd jew had time for Mohd). However it is not clear to me why more violent suras were given (as they were surplus to requirement) as time went on with this increasing success against the enemies of Muhd (saw).

I mean muslims were bountiful and respectful, Mohd always asked his followers to feed, clothe and look after the women & childrens of his enemies...he was a man of kindness and understanding.

It is not easy to first see your comrades fall...and then for your commander to say "look after the family of the fallen of your enemy".

So it seems to me that it is the earlier surahs that were hijacked. Not much is written about this ...but it kinda dawned on me as I got more knowledge.

I can understand why the Ahmadi came into being.

In effect our beautiful religion has been hi-jacked by the Sunni....or was it that gibreel and Allah were slight taken aback when the local ungrateful populace didn't take kindly to Mohd's holy words.

Forgive my doubting ...but I promise you I am not blaspheming.

Posted by: Naseem at February 13, 2006 6:44 AM

A pity.

Mr Tahiri did a very reasonable article in the London Sunday Times last week, where he warned flat out about British complacency - pointing out that the Islamic Jihadists had basically infiltrated nearly all of the 2,000 odd mosques in Britain.

Now , Mr Tahiri is NOT playing the "some mosques are extreme" card - he's sending out a huge warning that almost ALL of them have been taken over by Jihadists.

So, in that regards , is Mr Tahiri one of the genuine moderates, who is breaking ranks to say it as it is?

I dont know, but what he has to say is startling and I hope somebody in the British government is listening.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2036203,00.html

Quote:
Amir Tahiri, the eminent Iranian writer, argues in this newspaper today that Britain has become a haven for Islamic political parties and movements that would be banned in much of the Arab world. Only in Britain, and a few other tolerant western countries, have these extremist factions been given the space to spout anti-western hatred.

We should not confuse this with religious tolerance. Mr Tahiri says that Islam in Britain is “a political movement masquerading as a religion”. Mosques are often no more than political clubs.

Posted by: archduke at February 13, 2006 7:51 AM

OT, a brilliant analysis from www.barnabasfund.org:

13 February 2006

FOR CHURCH OF ENGLAND NEWSPAPER, 7 FEB 2006

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain,
has
said that he wishes to see Muhammad protected from insult or
disrespect.
Interestingly, he did not make this remark in the context of the
current
furore over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. He said it much earlier,
in a
debate on BBC Radio 4’s The Moral Maze on the subject of legislation to
ban
incitement to religious hatred. Sacranie’s hope was that the new law
once
passed would be used to protect Muhammad from any negative criticism.

Sacranie was greatly disappointed with the form in which the religious
hatred bill was eventually passed on 31st January, and complained of
injustice and impediments to the promotion of a cohesive and harmonious
society in Britain. However, he may soon find his hopes for the
protection
of Muhammad are fulfilled in the wake of the international response to
the
Danish cartoons of the Islamic prophet, a response which appears to
have
been not only orchestrated but deliberately aggravated.

The worldwide responses to the cartoons have raised two questions. (1)
Why
are Muslims, even “moderate” Muslims, so passionate in the defence of
Muhammad from any kind of slight? (2) Why do British politicians and
church leaders feel the need to tread so delicately around Muslim
sensibilities?

The answer to the first question lies in the veneration of Muhammad.
This
is a paradoxical aspect of Islam, which in theory affirms the
believer’s
direct access to God without the need for any intercessor.
Accordingly,
Muhammad should be viewed by Muslims as simply a human channel for
God’s
revelation. In practice, however, Muhammad’s figure towers over Islam
not
just as its founder, but as the “perfect man” who was divinely inspired
not
only in his Qur’anic revelations, but in all his sayings and deeds. He
is
considered infallible, free from sin, and serves as the supreme example
which all Muslims are obliged to emulate in every small detail.
Muhammad is
also seen as the intercessor with God who can change the divine decrees
and
admit those he intercedes for into paradise. Love for Muhammad (and
his
family) is deeply inculcated into most Muslim children. Many Muslims,
especially in the Indian subcontinent, hold that Muhammad was created
from
an eternal heavenly substance (Muhammadan light) that pre-existed with
God.
He is a logos-like figure similar to Christ – a sinless saviour,
mediator
and intercessor.

A main concern of Muslims is the person of Muhammad who must be
protected
from any criticism or slight. Protecting his honour is an obligation on
all. Any suspected denigration of Muhammad immediately creates
disturbances and riots in many Muslim countries and communities, more
so
than blasphemy against Allah himself.

The antipathy towards pictures of Muhammad stems from several of his
own
comments, as recorded in traditions which Muslims call hadith. An
example
is his statement that “angels do not enter a house in which there is a
dog
or a picture” (Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 5.338). However, this has not
been
taken as an absolute prohibition in all kinds of Islam at all times, as
witness the numerous examples of Muslim paintings of Muhammad in
earlier
centuries.

Many Muslims have vocalised their outrage that the Danish cartoons
could be
interpreted as suggesting that Muhammad was a “terrorist”. Here too is
a
paradox. For these Muslims seek to portray Muhammad as a Jesus-figure,
a
peace-maker and channel of God’s mercy, motivated by a profound love
for
humanity, who treated his enemies with forbearance, even kindness.
They
say that Muhammad (himself) never killed anyone. Yet Muhammad was a
general who led his army in wars of conquest against non-Muslims, and
under
whom brutalities were committed against some of his opponents. His
words
and example are cited by the most militant of Muslims today as the
justification for their violence which others would call terrorism.

The second question concerns the reason for the special treatment of
Muslims, in contrast to that of other groups. Ask a British politician
or
church leader why they feel Muslim feelings should be protected and
their
reply will probably include words like “respect”, “sensitivity”,
“courtesy”
etc. But is this the real reason? It can be tested by comparing the
treatment of Muslim sensibilities with the treatment of another faith’s
sensibilities, say, Christians. Do the same voices protest against the
numerous shows, artworks and writings which Christians find offensive
and
blasphemous? Do they call for Christian feelings to be protected? The
answer is no. The reason for this double standard appears to be not
“sensitivity” but “fear”. Non-Muslim society – including the Church -
is
afraid of angering Muslims because of what they might do in
retaliation.
And what some of them might do was clearly seen in the placards carried
by
Muslim marchers in Britain last weekend with slogans such as “Massacre
those who insult Islam” or “Whoever insults a prophet kill him.”

The motive of fear also explains the double standards of the
Metropolitan
Police during the demonstrations in London against the cartoons. None
of
those carrying placards calling for murder or beheading was arrested.
Scotland Yard explained that the decision not to arrest was taken
because
they feared a riot would have ensued. They did, however, arrest two
other
protestors, who were carrying cartoons of Muhammad. Police said they
were
detained to “prevent a breach of the peace”. Evidently they did not
fear
a non-Muslim riot, only a Muslim riot.

The police have also shown double standards in their treatment of
Christian
evangelists, especially in Muslim areas of the UK. There have been
several
incidents where police have intervened to prevent such evangelism, but
Islam is strangely untouched.

Fear could also explain the strangely arrogant attitude of the
government
whereby they expect the public to formulate an opinion on the matter of
the
cartoons without having actually seen them. Unless fear is invoked as
a
motive, this would seem to imply an astonishing lack of respect for the
British people, treating them like children.

As a result of this fear we are on the verge of creating a no-go area
in
society which would allow Muslims to dictate the terms on which they
will
relate to the rest of the population and ban the discussion of certain
subjects. The suggestion is that there are religious taboos linked to
“core identity” which should be off-limits to others.

At first sight this seems a very generous and compassionate response to
a
minority in our midst. Yet it could prove to be the thin end of the
wedge.
It could soon be followed by Muslim requests to have the voluntary
self-censorship enshrined in law, by means of new blasphemy legislation
to
protect Muhammad from criticism. The thick end of this particular
wedge
might be laws like those in Pakistan where since 1991 there has been a
mandatory death penalty for “defiling the name of” Muhammad (Section
295-C
of the Pakistan Penal Code). Furthermore, Muslims might seek a
news/debate
black-out on other issues connected with their “core identity” such as
the
treatment of women in Islam, honour killings, or the death penalty for
Muslims who convert to another faith. Then these important human
rights
issues could no longer be discussed in the UK.

The uneven playing field is a characteristic of Islam. While Muslims
rampage in fury about cartoons of Muhammad, no mention is made of the
highly offensive anti-Christian and anti-Jewish cartoons produced by
some
Muslims, including blasphemous depictions of Christ. Contrary to what
Jack
Straw has said, there is an open season to vilify Christianity.

A compliant press, an insipid Church and a pusillanimous government –
all
three erring on the side of pragmatism – are effectively allowing the
playing field to be tilted in favour of Islam. If ordinary British
non-Muslims perceive this tilt, i.e. that non-Muslim society has in
effect
submitted to Muslims, a submission borne of fear, how will they react?
Is
it possible that the British National Party will be the beneficiaries,
being viewed as the only true protector of British values and Britain’s
Christian heritage?

Has the time come for Christians to be more assertive and demand their
rights, that is, the freedom to proclaim the Gospel without
intimidation
even in Muslim areas of Britain and the withdrawal of material from the
public domain which blasphemes against Christ? Should not the Church
speak
out to affirm the continuing importance of Britain’s Judaeo-Christian
heritage? And should we not all remember our history? Appeasement
does
not ultimately bring peace.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo
7 February 2006

BARNABAS FUND E-MAIL NEWS SERVICE
Barnabas Fund’s e-mail news service provides the media and our
supporters
with urgent news briefs concerning suffering Christians around the
world.

If you would like to receive news briefs from the Barnabas Fund please
contact us with your name, postal and e-mail addresses.

Further details, quotes and photos on this and other stories may be
available
for news editors on request.

Barnabas Fund works to support Christian communities around the world
where
they are facing poverty and persecution.

Posted by: Polish infideless at February 13, 2006 8:51 AM

Naseem, you said "...Allah (swt) was most merciful & just to his childrens.." Naseem! I thought the Q'uran says allah has no sons, or any children? And you say you aren't blaspheming?! Or is the concept of Jesus as the Son and God as the spiritual Father beginning to take root?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 13, 2006 9:20 PM

Reposted due to Error..

Muslims have a Short Memory !

I am hearing it reported from the media that the reason for the outrage at the publication of cartoons of Mohammed is because "It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam"

This priciple is not present in the Koran, and over history, Muslim artists have themselves produced wonderful images, paintings of Mohammed.

Here are some examples;
1) A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century);
2) A painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century);
3) A portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century);
4) An Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century);
5) A Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century);
6) A painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century);
7) A painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century);
8) Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).

It would be interesting to see the reaction from the Muslim community if these historical images were published.

All these Muslims around the World protesting and resorting to violence, recalling Amassadors etc is indicative of a culture whos ignorance of their own faith and history is only matched by their extreme attitudes towards the West.

Robert, your site is very interesting and I shall recommend it to my colleagues.

Peter

p.s resent

Posted by: Peter at February 14, 2006 2:19 PM