| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
In "Leaving Islam is not a capital crime" in the Chicago Tribune (thanks to Doc Washburn), M. Cherif Bassiouni, a professor and the president of the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul University College of Law, purveys a series of half-truths and distortions that are -- at best -- misleading.
He begins by asserting:
A Muslim's conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law, contrary to the claims in the case of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan.
This is a sweeping statement that goes much farther than most statements that have been made by Islamic moderates in the last week or so. While others have asserted that apostasy should not be a capital crime in Islamic law, they have at least acknowledged that many Islamic authorities believe that it should. Bassiouni, on the other hand, states flatly -- in defiance of the clear teaching of every school of Islamic jurisprudence -- that apostasy is not a capital crime under Islamic law.
It is hard even to take seriously an analysis that begins with such an obvious falsehood. But because this is the sort of thing that gets published in the Chicago Tribune, and probably taken seriously by the likes of Paul Marshall, let us press on.
While there is long-established doctrine that apostasy is punishable by death, that has also long been questioned by Islamic criminal justice scholars, including this writer.
Now we are already entangled in a contradiction. I'm glad that Islamic criminal justice scholars are questioning this doctrine. But that does not mean that the doctrine doesn't exist, as Bassiouni asserted in his first sentence.
There are 1.4 billion Muslims who live in more than 140 countries. They constitute the great majority in 53 countries that declare themselves to be Muslim states. Most of these states have constitutions that guarantee freedom of religion, as does the Afghani constitution. Most of these states have criminal codes that do not include apostasy as a crime. Among them are: Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey.
Did you catch the sleight of hand? He started out by saying that Islamic law doesn't mandate death for apostates. Then he invokes Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey as evidence. But in none of those states is Sharia the sole basis of law. Certainly it is more or less of an influence in all of them, but since they all also have other sources for legislation, none of them can be invoked as telling us anything about Islamic law.
Bassiouni knows full well that there are schools of Islamic jurisprudence that he should be talking about if he wants to say anything about Islamic law. Why doesn't he mention them? Perhaps because he knows they will contradict what he is asserting?
Also, he makes no mention of the fact that because of the influence of the Sharia, in all those states apostates from Islam live under a cloud. For example, when the Egyptian secularist Faraj Foda was murdered in 1992, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali, whom some have hailed as a "reformer," declared: “The killing of Faraj Foda was in fact the implementation of the punishment against an apostate which the imam (the state) has failed to implement (undertake).” So Al-Ghazali was asserting that individual Muslims had the responsibility to implement Sharia when the state did not do so -- and he was asserting this with specific reference to the killing of an apostate.
Also, Paul Marshall, for all the undeniable faults of his analysis, is more honest than Bassiouni. Marshall notes: "Other countries, like Egypt, that have no laws against apostasy, instead use laws against 'insulting Islam' or 'creating sectarian strife.' In 2003, Egyptian security forces arrested 22 converts and people who had helped them. Some were tortured, and one, Isam Abdul Fathr, died in custody. Last year, Gaseer Mohamed Mahmoud was whipped and had his toenails pulled out by police, and was told he would be imprisoned until he gave up Christianity."
Bassiouni continues:
Other Muslim countries, however, criminalize apostasy on the basis of doctrinal constructs established in the 7th and 8th Centuries, which have been mildly questioned over the years or simply sidestepped.
Bassiouni doesn't tell us until later in his piece that those doctrinal constructs were based on statements attributed to Muhammad, and that therefore millions of Muslims believe that the death penalty for apostasy is the will of the prophet of Islam.
States that recognize it as a crime punishable by death include Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. However, there are no known cases in recent times in which someone charged with apostasy in these countries has been put to death.
Hmmm. Paul Marshall is again more honest than Bassiouni, acknowledging that that "in the last ten years Saudi Arabia has executed people for the crimes of apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy" and "in the 1990s, the Islamic Republic of Iran used death squads against converts, including major Protestant leaders, and the situation is worsening under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime is currently engaged in a systematic campaign to track down and reconvert or kill those who have changed their religion from Islam."
But perhaps even more important than the simple inaccuracy of Bassiouni's statements here is the fact that if such laws are on the books, that is enough. They can then be reasserted at any time, even if they are ignored for long periods.
Bassiouni then, perhaps knowing how weak his argument is in Hadith and fiqh, appeals to the Qur'an. In doing so, he ends up acknowledging that his is a minority position among Islamic scholars.
The principal category of crimes in Islam is called hudud. These crimes are referred to in the Koran and thus require prosecution. They are: adultery, theft, transgression (physical aggression), highway robbery, slander and alcohol consumption. Apostasy is included in this list by most scholars, but not by a few others. The Koran refers to it as follows: "And whoever of you turns [away] from his religion [Islam] and dies disbelieving, their works have failed in this world and the next [world]. Those are the inhabitants of fire: therein they shall dwell forever." Surat (chapter) al-Ma'eda, verse 35. This verse does not criminalize the turning away from Islam, nor does it establish a penalty.
Now we finally hear that all this comes from Muhammad, but that -- you guessed it -- he has been misunderstood:
Turning away from Islam, which is translated as apostasy, would not have been considered a crime, except the Prophet Muhammad (praise be upon him) in the 7th Century applied the death penalty to a Muslim who turned away from Islam. Historians of the Sunnah, the tradition established by the Prophet and deemed binding upon all Muslims, failed to note a significant fact about that case--that person not only had a change of faith, but decided to join the enemies of Islam at a time of war, thus making it a crime of high treason. Such a crime exists in all legal systems, many with the death penalty.
But it is not true that Muhammad ordered the execution only of apostates who joined the enemies of Islam. His statement Baddala deenahu, faqtuluhu -- if anyone changes his religion, kill him -- includes no caveat. He didn't say, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him only if he joins the enemies of Islam." He simply said, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." This statement is amply attested in the Hadith, and is accepted as authentic by all except the most disingenuous Islamic scholars. It appears in various forms in Bukhari, Ibn Majah, An-Nasai, Tayalisi, Malik, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and other authorities.
Nor does Muhammad make any exception when enunciating the principle in this way: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims" (Bukhari, vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17).
Also, Muhammad ordered the killing of more than one apostate, and they weren't all people who had joined up with his enemies. Take, for example, the case of Abdullah ibn Khatal. Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, tells us that "he had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was a Muslim.) When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked him and killed him and apostasized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him" (Ishaq 819). There is no suggestion that Abdullah ibn Khatal had joined Muhammad's enemies, unless singing satirical songs about him counts.
Nevertheless, Bassiouni asserts:
The Prophet's application of the death penalty was used by Muslim scholars in combination with the verse cited above as a legal basis for making apostasy, namely, change in religious belief, a crime punishable by death. These scholars have overlooked the passage to the enemy at a time of war, which was the most important element in the Prophet's decision in that case. They have also overlooked two important factors.The first relates to the Koran, the highest binding source of Islamic law, which contains a fundamental principle stated in unequivocal terms: "Let there be no compulsion in religion," Surat Al-Baqarah, verse 256. Surely this overarching principle cannot be transgressed by forcing a person under penalty of death to espouse Islam even after such a person professes to have renounced it.
I have noted before that simply invoking Qur'an 2:256 is not enough to establish that Islam has no death penalty for apostasy. This is because advocates of such a penalty are well aware of 2:256, and have explanations for it. For an example, see here.
Bassiouni then continues to build a case from the Qur'an, after which he says:
Why these issues were not raised in the Rahman trial in Kabul and with the government of Afghanistan is surprising.
It's only surprising to people who don't know, or don't want others to know, the deep roots that the death penalty for apostasy has within Islamic tradition.
Posted by Robert at April 3, 2006 12:27 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Foreign turists attacked on the streets of Paris,by muslim savages,for not being dressed "Properly"....next time when you want to travel to France,don`t forget your burka.
http://www.acage.org
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 3, 2006 1:32 PM
Here's how to really screw with Borders Books:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/04/borders-latest-ad.html
Posted by: pastorius at April 3, 2006 1:35 PM
Here is a good site to review how apostacy under sharia law are dealt with in the Islamic world
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/islam_-_apostasy.htm
Posted by: Mackie at April 3, 2006 2:03 PM
Tell that to Rahman.
Cognitive dissonance, delusion, moral relativism; whatever the left needs to lie to itself and make it feel better.
Posted by: Founding Forefather at April 3, 2006 2:08 PM
He had two singing-girls, Fartana and her friendI just have to ask:
Was Fartana the mother of Bengassi?
Posted by: Shy Guy at April 3, 2006 2:17 PM
The great Samuel Clemmons (a.k.a. "Mark Twain") said it best when he was describing someone that caught his ire:
"Everything they say is a lie, including the words 'the' and 'a'."
Posted by: kj at April 3, 2006 2:17 PM
Oh, but the Mohameddans say he was a racist because he toured "Palestine" in the 1890s and described it as a desolate wasteland.
Posted by: kj at April 3, 2006 2:17 PM
I think one crucial measure of the validity of an ideology--whether secular, like Communism, or religious, like Islam--isn't how easy it is for followers to get in, but how easy it is to get out. There's something seriously amiss with ideologies that take a "Hotel California" approach to belief--i.e. "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
Posted by: scaramouoche at April 3, 2006 2:25 PM
This is not surprising to me. Mr. Bassiouni is an instructor at DePaul University. DePaul is located on the North Shore of Chicago. This area is the most liberal area in Chicago. Mr. Bassiouni would never be challenged on his assumations as long as he is in the bastion of Mid West liberalism, the Liberal North Lakefront!
The Chicago Tribune is a good newspaper, but it has a more liberal slant than the Chicago Sun Times, which tends to be more fair and balanced in its reporting of the news.
According to a source, the Chicago Tribune is owned by a British news network. Which one, I don't know. But it would also explain why Mr. Bassiouni wasn't thoroughly and heavily inqiured about Islam, the rejecting of Islam or apostate under Islam, and the death sentence under Islam. The Chicago Tribune tends to be a safe newspaper for liberals when they don't want to be baraged with questions on their points of view.
at April 3, 2006 2:29 PM
On the necessity of the GWOT, precisely in light of their total intolerance...
"There was a fascinating symposium on the "Future of War" recently in the pages of "Historically Speaking, the Bulletin of The Historical Society," an organization to which I am honored to belong, with some important lessons to be heeded in the GWOT.
As Thucydides argued, people go to war for one, or some combination of, three reasons: fear, honor, and interest. He is largely correct. However, a proper understanding of our actual human nature compels us to refine the Thucydidean formula..."
Read the rest at The Dumb Ox
http:thomistic.blogspot.com
at April 3, 2006 2:39 PM
Oops. That http://thomistic.blogspot.com
Thucydides, Aquinas and the GWOT.
Posted by: Dumb Ox at April 3, 2006 2:40 PM
Cherif Bassiouni ........ This clown was born in Egypt
Posted by: dennisw at April 3, 2006 2:45 PM
They can stop lying now.
No one believes it any more.
Islam = death.
Mental.
Moral.
Emotional.
Spiritual.
Apostasy = freedom from this death cult.
(Which then threatens to kill you for leaving.)
The exceptions to this rule are merely for show, temporary expediency, current weakness or the 'war is deceit' mode popular during the lead-up to further attacks.
Mark Twain's "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" needs a codicil:
"The fourth kind of lie: practicing Islam."
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 3, 2006 3:00 PM
Robert,
Thanks for another fine refutation of the popular obfuscations.
Abu Bakr, the first of the "rightly-guided" Caliphs, waged war on apostates.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 388:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr was elected as a Caliph after him, some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said to Abu Bakr, "How dare you fight the people while Allah's Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight the people till they say 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah' And whoever says: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' waves his wealth and his life from me unless he deserves a legal punishment lusty, and his account will be with Allah! Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, I will fight him who discriminates between Zakat and prayers, for Zakat is the Compulsory right to be taken from the wealth By Allah, if they refuse to give me even a tying rope which they use to give to Allah's Apostle, I would fight them for withholding it." 'Umar said, 'By Allah, It was nothing, except I saw that Allah had opened the chest of Abu Bakr to the fight, and I came to know for certain that was the truth."
at April 3, 2006 3:03 PM
At best Bassiouni's analysis can be considered an interpretation of how Islamic law 'should' be rendered. But, throughout the article he claims that he presents what Islamic law is'.
It is incredible that an academic of such a high position, the president of the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul University College of Law, cannot keep straight such an elementary distinction.
The way Islamic law is applied today and in the past requires a purely descriptive analysis, reporting of what Islamic schools of thought in fact say and what the texts say; and that is, of course, what Spencer endeavors to present. But Bassiouni mixes in descriptive claims, like the practice of law in 'Islamic countries' (which Spencer points out have laws based on sources other than Sharia) et alia with normative claims, like the argument that Islamic scholars do not properly read what Mohammad said in the Qur'an (e.g. Surat 2.56 and 35). He wants to argue for how Islamic law should be interpreted, while leaving the impression that this is also the way it is.
In so doing, he mischaracterizes the reality of Sharia, and the prevalence of the view in Islamic jurisprudence that Sharia requires death for apostasy based on very clear, unambiguous hadith and strong supporting texts in the Qur'an, which strongly condemn apostasy.
Again, Spencer's aim, I take it, is to merely describe what Sharia is, how it is and has been in fact viewed and practiced. But, Bassiouni seems to have another purpose, he wants to argue for what should be; and, on that score, if he wants to fight the normative battle with merely reason and the texts, including the hadith, how can he convincingly win without a drastic move, like claiming that the hadith carry no authority, or that the Qur'an overstates the sin of apostacy? But that is another matter. That is a debate for Islamic scholars who want to try to win the debate of what Sharia should be and certainly does not belong in a Chicago newspaper.
How can Bassiouni confuse such a simple distinction between 'is' and 'ought', a distinction freshmen in philosophy should know or risk a failing grade on an essay in ethics, the philosophy of law, political philosophy, the philosophy of the social sciences etc. What would Bassiouni do if one of his students confused this distinction? Does the distinction matter any more at DePaul?
Spencer is too kind to call this analysis misleading, it is muddled with a confusion unworthy of a mediocre LSAT.
Posted by: JTF at April 3, 2006 3:19 PM
"Most of these states have constitutions that guarantee freedom of religion, as does the Afghani constitution."--Bassiouni, quoted.
Another lie. All anyone has to do is read the Afghan constitution to see that it is heavily rigged so that Islam overrules anything contrary to Islam.
Maududi's detailed discussion of apostacy can be found here (scroll down past translator's introductions)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/Mawdudi/index.htm
at April 3, 2006 3:20 PM
I am always surprised by these "experts" who have a greater knowledge of islam, than the clerics, imans, mullahs, etc...(sarcasm off)
In all seriousness, why even write an article like this? Why not take their word for it that according to THEIR "religion" apostasy is punishable by death. Who are we trying to convince?
I doubt that this Tribune article is causing any "soul searching" Afghanistan.
All this does is reinforce the notion that if you think islam is not a religion of tolerance and peace then you must be an islamophobe and by extension as bad (if not worse) as those who have "hijacked" a religion of peace.
If we are going to get serious about fighting this war on terrorism this sort of nonsense has got to stop.
Sincerly (for a change)
Mr Ape Pig
at April 3, 2006 3:27 PM
Truthfully, I would have bought this hook line and sinker pre 2001 or even shortly there after. But I have been to SWA two times since then and I wanted to "know the enemy." So I found this site in particular and I am getting edjucated. I read one of Mr. Spencer's books and plan on reading his others.
In my heart of hearts I pray that Islam becomes reformed. But when even internally there is so much mis-information... The only retort they have are lies upon lies.... I don't know how that goal can be accomplished. In the mean time I am praying for all those poor soals born into this vile religion of "peace"... that calls for murder and rape...
May their eyes be open to the TRUTH about islam.
Posted by: Weatherob at April 3, 2006 3:34 PM
As for the oft-repeated claim that the death penalty for apostacy is not ordered in the Koran, this is false. 4:89 says kill apostates. There are some restrictions in 4:90, but 4:90 is regarded as having been abrogated by 9:5.
Maududi (see link in my previous post) points out that there are many crimes for which there is no ruling in the Koran, e.g., some crimes exist now which did not exist at the time the Koran was revealed. Nevertheless, for Muslims who believe the Koran, the Koran must be consulted in order to arrive at a ruling, through an understanding of its basic principles and values. Thus, even if there was not a ruling against
I discuss the Koranic bases for the apostacy ruling in detail here (scroll down)
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/viewtopic.php?t=246&mforum=islamwatch
at April 3, 2006 3:41 PM
Who, on this web site or elsewhere, is writing a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune, pointing out the incongruities in M. Cherif Bassiouni's comments?
Posted by: Chatillon at April 3, 2006 4:02 PM
It is ironic that Morocco is mentioned as a Muslim country where apostasy is not a crime. I recall a Jewish Morrocan neighbor whose uncle had to flee Morroco for France to avoice forced conversion after being caught having a romance with a Muslim Arab woman. My neighbor pointedly told me that apostasy carried a 5-year sentence in Morocco. Algeria is currently debating a bill that would make it punishable by three years in prison and a 10k euro fine just for helping a Muslim leave the religion.
Sounds like the professor is engaging us in some classic taqiya.
Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at April 3, 2006 4:16 PM
Who, on this web site or elsewhere, is writing a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune, pointing out the incongruities in M. Cherif Bassiouni's comments?
If I can "cut and paste" this article.
I will. Mr. Spencer has a more convincing argument than I do. (see my above posting)
at April 3, 2006 4:19 PM
Bassiouni is big shot. He was nominated for a Noble Peace Prize in 1999, and was apparently involved in the drafing of both the Iraqi and Afghan Constitutions. His purpose seems clear enough: he wants to bend Sharia, in whatever ways he can, to a semblance of consistency with the benchmark for human rights in democratic states, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The problem with this paper is that he is not drafting arguments for democratic-minded jurists in Iraq and Afghanistan, who want to advance freedom of religious conscience in a hostile environment; he writes for a major paper to influence public opinion on what Sharia actually says about apostasy, again, to project the belief that criticism of Islam as a belief system on this score (and others), is somehow irrational, without merit, and can be disregarded. Hence, the article is in fact a propaganda piece and belongs in the panoply of the 'Islam is a religion of peace' propaganda intended to alienate and silence critics of Islam (that is, folks like Spencer, Ibn Warraq and others who criticize Islam for what it is); and in this case the propaganda which must abandon high claims about peace, justice and tolerance, and reduce itself to 'Islam does not kill those who leave it.'
That the president of the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul must resort to this kind of intellectual duplicity to advance the cause of 'Sharia loves human rights' is an indication of just how desperate this cause truly is.
'If it were only so'...but it is not. The sooner we wake and and admit that, the better.
Posted by: JTF at April 3, 2006 4:45 PM
Is it possible that this professor is in reality a Muslim? Is it possible that he is using this Chicago newspaper to spread taqqiya? I seriously suggest that someone at Jihad Watch or an affiliate investigate this possibility. He may very well tell us he is not a Muslim--and turn out to be not only a Muslim but a JIHADIST as well.
How does this man "know" of which he is speaking???? I truly want to know. Has he ever read a Quran? If not, he should be exposed publicly and IMMEDIATELY as a know-nothing on this topic and as such is clearly unqualified to be writing ANYTHING about Islam. If this man HAS read the Kuran, he is a liar as well, since we all KNOW the Kuran is a document of terrorism and warfare--and this guy certainly would know it too. Now if he turns out to be a Muslim, he HAS definitely read the Kuran and he needs to be exposed as an Islamic propagandist IMMEDIATELY. Any way you look at it, this guy's days as a spreader of lies to the public about Islam's being a religion of peace had best be put to an end as quickly as possible.
Perhaps HONEST REPORTING should tackle this author and the CHICAGO TRIBUNE. With a major war aimed at us by Islam and its murderous theologians we cannot afford to permit any more liars to steal the spotlight and misinform our people at such a critical juncture in history. I'm sure Honest Reporting will agree.
It may turn out that this guy is just another leftie trying to tell the world that Islam is OK, peaceful, leave it alone, (in the mold of Oprah Winfrey et al), Islam's hunky dorie, blah blah blah.
Listen to the left nowadays and they will tell you ALL ABOUT ISLAM and how it is SUPPOSED to be run. And they perform an act of magic in so doing---as these people have virtually to a man NEVER BOTHERED TO OPEN A KURAN IN THEIR LIVES EVEN ONCE. If you don't believe me ASK THEM. They'll tell you themselves.
So now the left has become not only anti-American, pro-Islam and pro-Socialist, but it has become CLAIRVOYANT TOO!!!! Wow. Aren't they amazing.
Posted by: pythagoras at April 3, 2006 4:47 PM
Not that it matters significantly, but Abdullah ibn Khatal was not killed for apostasy, but because of his denigration of the Prophet.
That makes it all better doesnt it? (Please not the sarcasm).
Posted by: Haidon at April 3, 2006 5:55 PM
Cherif Bassiouni is a former U.N. rapporteur for Afghanistan, current head of the "International Human Rights" something or other, the works. So when he engages in this kind of obvious and crude misrepresentation of Islam, and of Islamic soicieties where, if the government is not fully implementing the Sharia when it comes to apostates, then what might be called the customary law of Islam comes into play, and the Muslim state does not possess a legitimate monopoly on violence when it comes to enforcing the tenets of Islam.
Just how stupid or how ignorant does Cherif Bassiouni think Infidels will remain? When he does not deal with any of the relevant Qur'anic passages or any of the many relevant stories in the Hadith, then one must ask -- does he think no one among his listeners will do so? Or perhaps he does not care if he is shown up by, say, Robert Spencer, as long as what he perceives as the large and bleating masses of Infidel sheep will continue to baa-baa in ignorant unison. His contempt for Infidels is palpable.
Along the way, in his fantasy, he slips in that "1.4 billion Muslims" figure -- a deliberate of Muslim numbers (just the way the Sunni Arabs in Iraq are insistent that they make up not 19% of the population in Iraq, but at lest 42%). Such inflation is part of Muslim We-Are-On-the-March-and-We-Are-Unstoppable propaganda, designed to scare or overawe the Infidels -- the strategy of the frog that inflates its throat to appear bigger.
Having spent time recently in Afghanistan, Bassiounin dares to write that all kinds of Muslm "states have constitutions that guarantee freedom of religion, as does the Afghani constitution." He publishes this a week or two after we have all had a good look at what happens in Afghanistan to an apostate, a Mr. Abdul Rahman (now having taken refuge in Italy), despite that "guarantee" of "freedom of religion" in the "Afghani constitution" that Cherif Bassiouni makes so sillily much about.
As for Egypt, it would be easy to supply him with all sorts of cases involving Copts that show exactly how the Egyptian legal system does not for one minute forget, but continues to exhale the air of, the Sharia. Does he want that? Does he want his colleagues at the law school that had the bright idea of being imprssed with his credentials and unable, apparently, to consider the level of his apologetics, which makes him not a guide to nothing and nowhere, but rather an example of the defensiveness, taqiyya, and astonishing inability of even seemingly Westernized and smooth Muslims, supposedly familiar with the legal systems of the West and with the actual, not the imagined, rights of Western man, to continue to misstate so grossly, in a fashion so easily exposed, the tenets of Islam.
Is it Cherif Bassiouni's contention that, because some Muslim countries do not enforce the Sharia through their laws, that important elements of the Sharia are not enforced? Bassiouni writes that:
"Most of these [Muslim] states have criminal codes that do not include apostasy as a crime. Among them are: Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey."
Does he think it is easy, or even possible, for an apostate to live in, say, Egypt (one of his examples of a Muslim state that does not enforce the Sharia) or Kuwait (another one of his examples). The ghost of Farag Foda could instruct him. And by the way -- whatever happened to the murderers of Faraj Foda? Were they found, were they punished, would any Muslim authority believe that they should be punished?
Similarly, in Kuwait, has he forgotten the case of Robert Hossein, ne Qambar, who announced his conversion to Christianity about ten years ago, and was promptly relieved of his wife, his children, his business, his everything, and then was threatened with death, but a huge outcry in Great Britain managed to save his life, and he managed to be called "crazy" (I heard a rich and sophisticated and Westernized Kuwaiti insist that Westerners did not understand -- the man, he said, was "clearly crazy").
Does he think that in Algeria, where Berbers are converting to Christianity, that they do so openly, without any consequences? Is he unaware of recent proposals to make sure that the law follows customary law -- because it has turned out that the Berbers are being insufficiently Islamic and not enforcing, informally, what the Arabs in Algeria do?
And Egypt and Algeria are two of the most important Muslim states listed by Bassiouni, both influenced at one time by non-Islamic legal systems, which systems introduced, for a time, a less starkly Islamic code.
What about the other countries he lists with such aplomb, assuming he will not be caught out publicly, and it is worth it to mislead people. Here he he will not be caught out? What about the other countries? Iraq under Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime did not punish apostasy. But what about the new, post-Ba'athist Iraq? Would Mr. Bassiouni claim that in southern Iraq, including the city of Basra, that women are not now forced to wear islamically correct clothing, that vendors of alcohol have been murdered, that anyone who dared call himself an apostate would certainly be killed -- and that the killers would go free, would not even be picked up by the local authorities? What does that tell us about Iraq and the power of Islam and the Sharia in Iraq? What does he make of all those reports of secular, Westernized women who had returned to Iraq and who have declared to reporters that they were disgusted, that "it was not for this that I returned" and similar expressions of horror at the return of Islam, enforced informally as well as formally.
And there is Jordan. Does Bassiouni seriously think that someone living in Jordan can publicly announce his conversion from Islam to Christianity without any fear for his life, or for his property? Is that what he wishes to say?
He knows perfectly well that that would be impossible.
What about Indonesia? It took some time for the imposed tolerance of the Dutch to be worn away, but since those Dutch left nearly a half-century ago, that Western tolerance has been steadily replaced by Muslim intolerance. Cherif Bassiouni must have read of the attacks on Christians in East Timor before it obtained independence, and in the Moluccas today. He must be aware of previous large-scale attacks on local (especially Chinese) non-Muslims. What does he think would be the fate of a former Muslim? Indifference? Hatred? Murder? And the same could be said for Malaysia.
There are three countries on his list where someone might, in fact, be able to convert without suffering greatly for doing so. The first country is Tunisia, where the attempt to limit the political and social power of Islam, begun by Bourguiba and his Destour Party, seems to have worked. The second is Turkey, where Kemal Pasha (Ataturk) introduced his own, much more far-reaching systematic campaign to limit Muslim power permitted the emergence of a secular middle class. There is Syria, where the ruling military caste, the Alawites, are always in danger from the real Muslims -- the Alawites are not regarded by other Muslims as orthodox Muslims and they have been attacked in the past, and if the real Sunni Muslims ever come to power, they will wipe out the Alawites. If Syria is less firmly Muslim in its orientation, it is because the Alawites have nothing to fear from Syria's Christians (from whose ranks special guards for the Assad family have been drawn), and so have a stake in removing obstacles to an increase in the number of Christians.
Morocco is a country where the absolute ruler, the Sherifian monarch, remains cushioned by the prestige of being a descendant of Muhammad, and need not prove, through its law code,that apostates will be punished. Other Moroccans, acting informally, will take care of things.
Lebanon? Well, Lebanon has a large Christian ppulation that helps to lessen the power of Islam and attempts to impose the Sharia in the area of apostasy.
From first to last, Bassiouni offers a tortured exercise in half-truths or quarter-truths or no truths, decked out in all the rhetorical fineryhe could muster. It wasn't much.
Posted by: Hugh at April 3, 2006 6:08 PM
Enlightening and effective piece by Robert Spencer. Fascinating to follow the link he provides and see how the top cleric of Pakistan reconciles the "no compulsion in religion" verse with death for apostasy. Here's how: a non-Muslim supposedly cannot be compelled to become Muslim, but once he does, if he apostasizes, he should be killed.
I found the Ishaq passage quoted by Robert hard to follow because several of Ishaq's pronouns have hazy antecedents. Here's my attempt to nail down the antecendents:
Ibn Ishaq 819: "he [Abdullah ibn Khatal] had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He [Abdullah ibn Khatal] had with him a freed slave who served him. (He [the slave] was a Muslim.) When they halted he [Abdullah ibn Khatal] ordered the latter [the slave] to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he [Abdullah ibn Khatal] woke up the man had done nothing, so he [Abdullah ibn Khatal] attacked him and killed him and apostasized. He [Abdullah ibn Khatal] had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he [Mohammed] ordered that they should be killed with him [Abdullah ibn Khatal]" (Ishaq 819).
- Omar
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at April 3, 2006 7:15 PM
Just another example that no Mohammedan can ever be trusted to tell the truth or to come out with a critical analysis of Islam...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 3, 2006 7:46 PM
Quran chapters are of course arranged from longest to shortest, not chronologically.
Does anyone know if there is a standard chronological order accepted by most Muslims? And what it is? I have heard that Jalalu'd-Din as-Syuti is considered an authority. Here's his chronological order of Quran chapters (suras):
96 >>> 68 >>> 73 >>> 74 >>> 111 >>> 81 >>> 87
>>> 92 >>> 89 >>> 93 >>> 94 >>> 103 >>> 100 >>>
108 >>> 102 >>> 107 >>> 109 >>> 105 >>> 113 >>>
114 >>> 112 >>> 53 >>> 80 >>> 97 >>> 91 >>> 85
>>> 95 >>> 106 >>> 101 >>> 75 >>> 104 >>> 77 >>>
50 >>> 90 >>> 86 >>> 54 >>> 38 >>> 7 >>> 72 >>>
36 >>> 25 >>> 35 >>> 19 >>> 20 >>> 56 >>> 26 >>>
27 >>> 28 >>> 17 >>> 10 >>> 11 >>> 12 >>> 15 >>>
6 >>> 37 >>> 31 >>> 34 >>> 39 >>> 40 >>> 41 >>>
42 >>> 43 >>> 44 >>> 45 >>> 46 >>> 51 >>> 88 >>>
18 >>> 16 >>> 71 >>> 14 >>> 21 >>> 23 >>> 32 >>>
52 >>> 67 >>> 69 >>> 70 >>> 78 >>> 79 >>> 82 >>>
84 >>> 30 >>> 29 >>> 83 >>> 2 >>> 8 >>> 3 >>> 33
>>> 60 >>> 4 >>> 99 >>> 57 >>> 47 >>> 62 >>> 55
>>> 76 >>> 13 >>> 98 >>> 59 >>> 110 >>> 24 >>> 22
>>> 63 >>> 58 >>> 49 >>> 66 >>> 65 >>> 64 >>> 61
>>> 48 >>> 5 >>> 9 >>> 1
Interestingly, one of the points on which Western chronological orders agree with as-Syuti (who I gather is the accepted Muslim authority), is on Sura 9, the violent sura. Western scholars Muir and Noldeke date Sura 9 last and second-to last respectively.
Where there is a contradiction between Sura 9 and more tolerant suras in the Quran, the violent and fascistic 9 wins out, according to the Quran's doctrine of abrogation, because 9 came later.
- Omar
at April 3, 2006 7:52 PM
It is always enjoyable to read a refutation of a stupid article, point-by-point. Instant gratification.
My question is with the hadith that Robert mentions and that Omar (two posts above) rewrites with the clarifying antecedents.
Couldn't it be argued that Abdullah ibn Khatal was executed because he killed a Muslim (his slave)? Since killing (a Muslim) is one of the three things that a Muslim can lose his life over, unless it being a Muslim slave that doesn't count?
Posted by: former liberal WF at April 3, 2006 8:03 PM
Omar,
Not sure if you find anyone here to give you the right answers to your 'chronological Koran' questions here. You might check back with Ali Sina from Faith Freedom International. Ali is a former Muslim and knows his stuff like few others...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 3, 2006 8:11 PM
For more on the situation of those wishing to convert from Islam in Algeria, a country in which apostates may not be formally sentenced to death but can fully expect such a sentence to be carried out by someone or some group outside the state, there is this:
"Algeria bans Muslims from learning about Christianity
Algeria, Politics, 3/21/2006
The Algerian parliament has approved a law banning the call to embrace other religions than Islam.
This law states to jail anyone "trying to call on a Muslim to embrace another religion," in remarks to the Christianizing (evangelize) campaigns taking place in the country.
The Algerian Ummah council (Senate) approved this decision on Monday. This decision which was approved by the national people's council ( parliament) on March 15th is an attempt to withstand the Christianizing campaign which had witnessed a notable activity recently especially in al-Qabayel area east of the country.
The ratified law stated to sentence imprisonment for two to five years and a fee between 5 to 10 thousands EURO against "anyone urging or forcing or tempting, to convert a Muslim to another religion."
The same penalty applies to every person, manufacturer, store or circulate publications or audo-visual or other means aiming at destabilizing attachment to Islam.
The law also bans practicing any religion "except Islam" "outside buildings allocated for that, and links specialized buildings aimed at practice of religion by a prior licensing."
One official at the ministry of religious affairs said that the aim of the law is basically to "ban religious activity, and secret religious campaigns."
The Christian community constitutes the largest religious minority in the country. This community accounts for the time being to less than 11,000 after it was hundreds of thousands before Algeria's independence in 1962 including 110 priests and 170 monks distributed all over Algerian lands."
Posted by: Hugh at April 3, 2006 9:50 PM
The Muslims are on the defensive all over the internet and the world, decieving the kufr about apostasy and the Qur'an check out this piece of work by another lying Muslim Death for Apostasy is UnIslamic and not in the Qur'an he then goes on to say that the Jews corrupted the hadith, and that ten of 17 were thrown out, he casts aspersions on ahadith, then goes on to quote them were it suits his purpose, ignoring that of Bukhari, the most authentic of Hadith (in Muslim ideology) yet down the thread he quotes Bukhari.
That forum is chock full of Muslims (and Right wing and left wing sympathizers) who can't see their own contradictions or if they can, they turn a blind eye towards them always staying on the offense (as the best defense), spewing their taqiyya as though it were vomit.
Posted by: Nariz at April 3, 2006 9:58 PM
DePaul University in Chicago is about as leftist as you can get -- on everything.
I would disregard any so-called "scholarship" that is spawned by this (using the term loosely) institute of higher learning.
They are not capable of original thought -- only the respinning of leftist propaganda and socialist ideology woven into every area academics from jurisprudence to theology.
To the extent that their nonsense has surfaced in the Tribune -- it might take on the momentary illusion of credibility.
Consequently it needs to be addressed and refuted for the intellectual garbage that it is -- lest feeble and impressionable minds be infected by it.
at April 3, 2006 11:05 PM
To Sheik yer'mami:
Thanks for the suggestion -- I will ask Ali Sina. I was hoping Messrs. Spencer or Fitzgerald would offer up the answer about the chronological order of suras.
- Omar
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at April 3, 2006 11:51 PM
former liberal WF said:
My question is with the [Ishaq 819 passage] that Robert mentions and that Omar ([several] posts above) rewrites with the clarifying antecedents [to the hazy pronouns].Couldn't it be argued that Abdullah ibn Khatal was executed because he killed a Muslim (his slave)? Since killing (a Muslim) is one of the three things that a Muslim can lose his life over, unless it being a Muslim slave that doesn't count?
By the way, it was not an ahadith that Robert cited and into which I inserted bracketed clarifications. It was a passage from the earliest extant Mohammed biography (by Ishaq). But your question is interesting, former liberal WF, and I hope Robert or Hugh sees it.
Though I inadvertently described the murder victim as a "slave," in the Ishaq passage he is called a "freed slave". So that might support your idea that the chief reason Mohammed killed Abdullah ibn Khatal was as punishment for murder, especially since the murder victim was a free Muslim. And apparently Mohammed killed the singing girls not because of apostasy, but because they wrote satirical songs about him.
He [Abdullah ibn Khatal] had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he [Mohammed] ordered that they should be killed with him [Abdullah ibn Khatal]" (from Ishaq 819).
- Omar
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at April 4, 2006 12:16 AM
Omar,
I also recommend talking to an expert, or someone who has written an indepth article on the subject. On problem is that, not only are the Suras out of order, but that some verses and passages within Suras are out of order (e.g., a verse from one Sura could be from the time period alotted to a different Sura, so that it is chronologically out of place. The Koran is a mess--the serial order and the categorical (or topical) arrangement is haphazzard at best.
I noticed Sura 1 was listed last in your posted order. That's unusual. There is a high level of disagreement over Sura 1. Some have it as a Meccan verse. Generally Suras 9 and 5 are regarded as the last two.
But overall, the chronological order you posted looks nearly the same as these other suggested orders. (See suggested orders at these links).
http://www.masmn.org/documents/Books/Ahmad_von_Denffer/Ulum_al_Qur'an/006.htm
http://www.efarsi.org/arabic/arabic_table.html
There is mathematically a high level of agreement between different author's proposed orders of the Suras. Of course, perhaps none of these authors are independent of one another's work (except perhaps the very first person who ever tried to order it), so it is difficult to assess how much true agreement/disagreement there is.
Here are the verses of abrogation, in Arberry's translation.
“And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything?” 2:106 Arberry
“And when We exchange a verse in the place of another verse and God knows very well what He is sending down -- they say, 'Thou art a mere forger!' Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge.” 16:101 Arberry.
The next link has an excellent presentation of all of the verses that are believed, by many, to have been abrogated by 9:5. (Again, there is not 100% agreement on exactly what is abrogated, but there is general agreement that 9:5 abrogates a large number of earlier, more restrained, verses. In fact, that's the subject matter of the early part of Sura 9--abrogating previous peace treaties.
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/abrogating_satan.htm
“The official position of Sunni Islam is that the Quran contains a unique feature known as abrogation. Sunni scholarship maintains, on the basis of a few Quranic passages, that the Quran has verses that cancel or abrogate other verses within it. The verses that have been canceled or annulled are known as mansukh, and those texts or commands doing the canceling are called nasikh.”
PS. Whenever I'm criticizing Islamic doctrine, I try to address the positions of readers who accept, and readers who do not accept, abrogation. Despite the official position that some schools may hold (and this, of course, must be acknowledged), there is some disagreement in regards to abrogation on any given verse that pertains to a controversial issue. I think a solid criticism should be based on the whole Koran, and should not simply focus on abrogation.
at April 4, 2006 1:12 AM
Why is this guy preaching to the American public about Islamic apostasy law? It isn't the American public that is asking for the death penalty on apostates. It is the many Muslims world-wide that are asking for it, especially the Afghans. If his arguments are so good, why doesn't he go to Afghanistan and defend Abdul Rahman, and persuade his coreligionists to his views? Or go to Al-Azhar and debate with the other lecturers there and convince them? Why don't he debate with all the 4 major Sunni schools and the Shias about this? Why pick on the American public who know so little about Islam?
Oh, maybe that is the whole point.
Posted by: yaqub at April 4, 2006 2:35 AM
Hugh,
In the 100% muslim state of Republic of Maldives, apostasy will carry the death penalty. The Constitution requires all citizens to be muslims of the Sunni sect. Although there is no law that states that apostasy carries the death penalty, the Constitution also says that all laws of the country must be in adherence to the Koran. You see the taqiyya?
The international community has to address the issue.
Maldivian Christians are living in secrecy. If they were to be found out, they are thrown in jail and tortured by the brutal police of Presdent Abdul Gayoom, the Egyptian Islamic preacher President and Top Imam of the country until they recant. When the brutal police murdered Ivan Naseem in custody, the unofficial reason for the public to ignore his death was that he tore up a Koran
Because the population is only 300,000 and there is bigger stuff happening elswhere, we are always ignored. Thus this mullah president can do whatever he wants.
The Christian peoples of Europe who come and enjoy the beautiful resorts hotels of the Maldives either do not know or care that their co-religionists are living in secrecy and fear in the fishing village where they go to buy their souvenirs.
Yes. You can add the Republic of Maldives to the list of nations that carry the death penalty for leaving Islam.
at April 4, 2006 3:14 AM
i found this downright misleading lie
"BUDDHISTS
Was it not just a few years ago that the Taliban of Afghanistan destroyed, without reason, the world's most ancient statues of Buddha?
As you will see in TELL CHILDREN THE TRUTH, this would have been unthinkable in the Muslim world before Amin Al Husseini. "http://tellthechildrenthetruth.com/ourmessage.html
i just found this site and further examination is now in progress.
at April 4, 2006 4:48 AM
its a taqiyya site
Posted by: The Pig Loving Maldivian at April 4, 2006 4:52 AM
Shy Guy wrote:
"He had two singing-girls, Fartana and her friend"
"I just have to ask: Was Fartana the mother of Bengassi?"
Seems possible - now that we know Bengassi was just spouting a load of old Shi'ite.
Posted by: vadar at April 4, 2006 5:18 AM
Pig Loving Maldivian,
They've been doing it ever since they first came into contact with Buddhist civilization.
The decline of Buddhism along the Silk Road was due to the collapse of the Tang Dynasty in the East and the invasion of Arabs in the West. The conversion to Islam started in the 8th century in Central Asia. Since Islam condemned the iconography, most of the Buddhist statues and wall-paintings were damaged or destroyed. Buddhist temples and stupas were abandoned and buried beneath the sand. By the 15th century, the entire Central Asia basin had been converted to Islam.
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/buddhism.shtml
Destroying things is what they do best.
That site should be called "tell the children a pack of lies".
I'm sorry to hear about what people in the Maldives have to go through. And, as you say, it's not even particularly relevant what laws are on the books, because a state of this type can simply trump up some other charge.
Posted by: Yojimbo at April 4, 2006 5:27 AM
Pig loving Maldivian:
Tell me please, how do they put up with all those infidel tourists who come there sunbathing topless and completely nude cavorting on the beaches? What's the situation re rape and murder & robberies?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 4, 2006 6:10 AM
The university at which I am employed and the seminary I attend are totalitartian in their dhimmitude.
They have invited the same types of lying taqiyya spewing trashpeddlers as this loser to come lie to the students about how glorious Islam is and how close they are to Christians,etc.
Anyone who challenges it is a racist or ignorant and I can't take it much longer.
This would be a very apt description of either DePaul or for that matter Notre Dame -- both globalist-leftist institutions of higher learning.
at April 4, 2006 8:27 AM
Hugh in regards to your posting above, I have to say I am always impressed with the knowledge you and Robert have on the topic of Islam, and its states.
However I noticed maybe for the very first time I disagreed with you on one item in your posting.
In regards to Turkey, while it is generally true that you can probably convert, no-one does and there are many reasons for this.
As I understand it there are approximately 72,000,000 Muslims in Turkey with a population of approximately 62,000 Christians. Istanbul was the largest Greek city in the world in its heyday. The vast majority of its residents were Greeks, mixed with all types of Christians, Armenian, Serbs etc.
Now as a result of the laws in Turkey as I am told, there are only 2,000 Greeks left in this city. The reason for this is that you cannot inherit land there unless you are Muslim. There must be some truth to this as now no property is owned by Greeks anymore and that by law, only a Turkish citizen can become Patriarch of Constantinople.
This type of slow strangulation makes sense, it won't be long before there is no Greek Orthodox Patriarch in its founding city.
These are the types of programs that secular Islamic countries employ, and until I see real proof, I will never be able to see Turkey as anything other than an Islamic bully playing the usual game of "war is deception."
Niv
Posted by: niv at April 4, 2006 3:30 PM
sheik yer'mami
In the Maldives each resort hotel has an island to itself. There are no hotels/bars in islands inhabited by locals. Mixing of tourists and locals is controlled. Alcohol is haraam for Maldivians and if you get caught unless you have clout in the regime, you will get 40 lashes and a year or more in jail.
Up to now tourists were allowed to "fornicate' in the resort hotels without interference.
However a recent case appears to change all that. This year a South american tourist was accused of rape of an English girl who was on holiday with her parents. According to some staff on the resort it appeared to be love, but at the insistence of the parents the young man was arrrested and tried. The rape charge was reduced and the young man was convicted of "bad conduct - read sex without intercourse" and sentenced to 6 months banishment to a fishing village. After lobbying by the south americans (read payoff), the south american was released on a pardon from the omnipotent Dictator.
at April 4, 2006 4:44 PM
To Archimedes
Thanks for the very useful comments and excellent links.
Also interesting to hear more about the abrogation idea -- that it's somewhat controversial.
It's challenging to get a big overview of Islam -- what the majority believes about any given issue. What the schools of Islamic law believe, etc. I have heard that all the main schools of Islamic law judge death the right punishment for apostasy.
Noldeke places 9 second to last, and 5 last. But I'm more interested in what Muslim scholars think, since that's where the threat is. (As-Syuti doesn't differ with Noldeke much on 5 and 9.)
Thanks again for the info. - Omar
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at April 5, 2006 1:24 AM
To Archimedes:
I checked out the first link you gave: http://www.masmn.org/documents/Books/Ahmad_von_Denffer/Ulum_al_Qur'an/006.htm
The order the above guys have is very similar though not identical, especially for the Medina phase. Very interesting.
I also checked out the second link you gave:
http://www.efarsi.org/arabic/arabic_table.html
The chronological order at the above site is put together by a Dr. Rashad Khalifa, a heretic from standard Islam, who seems to have been killed for his views some years ago. As I recall, he said the Hadith should be discarded as false for making Muhammed look terrible. And, according to the admittedly unreliable Wikipedia, Khalifa claimed that while Muhammed was the last "prophet," Muhammed was not the last "messenger". A "messenger", in Khalifa's definition, consolidates or purifies what a prophet brings. Rashad Khalifa claimed himself to be a new messenger. This will of course have annoyed Muslims, perhaps some of the lethal ones.
Khalifa also used computers to pretend to prove that the Quran is miraculously imbued with the number 19. He found that all kinds of elements in the Quran are multiples of 19. The number of letters in the headings of all the suras, or the number of suras, and many other aspects of the book. What inspired him to this "19" obsession? Apart from some variant of the Pythagorean fallacy (if I can call it that) that "number" is the ultimate key to anything, one of the verses in the Quran mentions something about 19 guardians or the like. So Khalifa programmed a computer to find anything in the Quran that is a multiple of 19, and then he presented the result and said it proved the Quran is a huge miracle that no merely human ability could have constructed. But it appears that Khalifa also presented some things as multiples of 19 that didn't in fact fill that bill and, whether intentionally or not, manipulated his results in various ways.
Several people, including, Martin Gardner, the mathematician who used to write a column for "Scientific American," have written articles examining the fatuous number games Dr. Khalifa's played in order to concoct his "mathematical miracle of the Quran."
In any event, that site is definitely not a mainstream Muslim site.
- Omar
at April 5, 2006 2:46 AM
The REAL MESSAGE HERE IS: NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING A MUSLIM SAYS. NEVER!
In the words of FAITH FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL: "Listening to islam is not for me!" They're 100% CORRECT!!!!!
Posted by: pythagoras at April 5, 2006 3:14 PM
(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.)