| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Islamic apologist Stephen Schwartz, who has responded with intemperate hostility in the past to my attempts to open a serious dialogue, has misrepresented Islamic apostasy law, specifically that of the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence, in a new column, "Death Lists and Dissenters."
Why does this matter? Because any number of people will read Schwartz's column and come away with a more sanguine view of Islamic apostasy law than is justified by the facts. This is in microcosm the same kind of misapprehension that has deformed American response to the global jihad. We cannot fight an enemy that we are afraid to name, and we cannot defeat one whom we do not understand. Inaccurate statements about Sharia by Schwartz and others have led the American government to tolerate, even to sponsor, Sharia regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disastrous consequences of this were demonstrated by the Abdul Rahman case, the implications of which no one in Washington has yet faced. In the wake of that case, the last thing we need is more inaccuracy about Sharia, especially from those who preen about their access to those in influential positions.
Schwartz writes:
Shafi'i Sunni jurisprudence, a school of shari'a which remains widespread in Arab countries and Southeast Asia, defines apostasy as straying from the religion, rather than leaving it or joining another, and recommends repeated mercy and opportunities to correct alleged errors. The Maliki school of jurisprudence, which is established in northwest Africa, is severe on those who change religions, demanding capital punishment. This may reflect the history of formerly-Islamic Spain where, during periods when territory passed from Muslim to Christian rule, Muslims who had converted from Christianity to Islam returned to their earlier faith.
Reading that paragraph, you would get the impression that Malikis call for death for apostates, while Shafi'is are more merciful. And that in itself would be reassuring, as it would give the impression that the Shafi'is are perhaps a moderate group that might one day prevail over the extremist elements in Islam. But there are several things wrong with this. One is that Schwartz doesn't mention the two other principal schools of Sunni jurisprudence, the Hanbali and Hanafi. Both call for death for apostates.
So does that leave the Shafi'is as the only ones who are more merciful? Not quite. The Shafi'i manual 'Umdat al-Salik, certified by the foremost exponent of Shafi'i fiqh, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, as "conform[ing] to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community," is quite clear that apostates must be killed:
Someone raised among Muslims who denies the obligatoriness of the prayer, zakat, fasting Ramadan, the pilgrimage, or the unlawfulness of wine or adultery, or denies something else upon which there is a scholarly consensus...and which is necessarily known as being of the religion...thereby becomes an unbeliever (kafir) and is executed for his unbelief...(f1.3)
And:
When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. (o8.1)
What about what Schwartz says about trying to get the apostate to repent? Oh, that's all true. Immediately following the sentence above, 'Umdat al-Salik continues:
In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. (o8.2)
What Schwartz has essentially done is tell you the first half of Shafi'i law concerning apostates. For some reason he leaves out the second half, and then proceeds to busy himself with irrelevancy:
I have personally and extensively observed Islamic customs in which the faith of Muhammad has fused with Christian elements (in the Balkans), Buddhism and shamanism (in Central Asia), and local folk religious traditions (in Indonesia). In the first two cases, syncretism or religious merging attracted no criticism from mainstream Muslim clerics, who considered porous borders between faiths a natural phenomenon. In Indonesia, however, Muslim clerics influenced by the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia have preached against such variations from the standard Sunni way, and recently have incited violence against those who diverge from their path.
Ah, yes, it's all the Wahhabis' fault. But even before this, syncretism does not equal apostasy, and so all this is simply irrelevant.
Schwartz continues:
However, under the great Muslim empires, accusations of apostasy were often pretexts for the suppression of political and intellectual dissent, and that is how such charges are typically employed today in such countries as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and Pakistan. The Prophet Muhammad is said to have warned against accusations of apostasy, according to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, which is prevalent from the Balkans to India. The Prophet, it is said, opined that when one Muslim accuses another of disbelief, the accuser is the unbeliever.
Correct. Schwartz is referring to this hadith:
It is reported on the authority of Ibn 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: Any person who called his brother: or unbeliever (has in fact done an act by which this unbelief) would return to one of them. If it were so, as he asserted (then the unbelief of man was confirmed but if it was not true), then it returned to him (to the man who labeled it on his brother Muslim). (Sahih Muslim, book 1, no. 117)
But he doesn't mention this one:
Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260)
You can see that the first hadith doesn't simply have Muhammad saying that any accusation of apostasy is itself an act of apostasy, but only a false accusation.
Why would Schwartz misrepresent the first hadith and not mention the second? Why did he state only half of Shafi'i fiqh on apostasy? Rather than sweeping unpleasant material under the rug, wouldn't a more effective path to genuine Islamic reform be to confront and repudiate the elements of Islamic tradition that give rise to the violence we see everywhere in the world today, and to the murderous harassment of people like Abdul Rahman?
Schwartz concludes his article:
Nevertheless, issues of conversion from Islam to Christianity remain a major issue in the threatened clash of civilizations. Aside from general religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, which is an immediate necessity, a global Islamic consensus with contemporary attitudes about freedom of religious conscience will have to be developed by Muslim authorities in a long series of colloquies inspired by the utmost seriousness and intellectual weight. There is no simple answer to these questions. Still, the intent of the April 10 death list was not to clarify religious views, but to intimidate dissenters. This must not be tolerated by Western authorities, who must assist those threatened by such aggression, especially those residing in the democracies.
I am glad that he opposes such intimidation, and I am happy to stand with him in that opposition. But I wonder why there is "no simple answer" to questions about "freedom of religious conscience." Why not? Why no call for unrestricted freedom of religious conscience, and for an end to coercion, violent intimidation, as well as to attempts by proselytizers to induce conversion by offering material rewards of various kinds? Why should there be any restrictions at all on the religious conscience?
Posted by Robert at April 19, 2006 4:41 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Schwartz is a poisonous and dishonest little worm, isn't he?
Robert would never say so, but I don't mind doing so, because it is transparently clear that the man is dissembling, and Schwartz's "there is no simple answer to these questions" is quite simply a disgusting comment that no honest and decent man could make.
Posted by: Yojimbo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 19, 2006 5:35 PM
Somone please thank Daniel Pipes for for sponsoring Stephen Schwartz.
This only goes to show us that the RAND study "Civil Democratic Islam" is a losing strategy that prmotes loser perspectives.
Shame on you Pipes for heralding this trash!
at April 19, 2006 6:05 PM
There is no complulsion in religion.
He who changes his religion; kill him.
Islam is a religion of peace & tolerance.
All non-Muslim must be killed or subjugated.
If any of the above commands really came from Allah, then Muhammed must've been a blasphemous apostate who should've smitten at his own neck.
Little wonder that he didn't.
at April 19, 2006 6:15 PM
From the article above:
"Aside from general religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, which is an immediate necessity...."
Religious freedom in Saudi Arabia? Is he drunk or stupid?
Posted by: Anti-PC at April 19, 2006 6:32 PM
You know what really annoys me about "al-Kosovi"? How he holds up Balkan (and by extension Causcus) Muslims as role models for the rest of the Muslim world. Here's a wake up call: they are not moderate and the ones that are unobservant are among some of the most criminally minded white people on earth. They are extremely tribal, fascistic, and even if they enjoy a nice glass of rakia every now and then, they are still overwhelmingly loyal to Islam and their nation. So even a watered down, syncretic and quasi-apostate Islam is no good, it only produces criminals if we were to look at the Albanians and Chechens as a case study.
Why the Weekly Standard, Frontpage, and TCS even bother with Schwartz puzzles me. He is a proven liar and Muslim propagandist, but he's a neocon so therefore he must be on our side, when he clearly is not. He is on the side of Islam and he would just love to see America and Europe become more Islamic. Celebrate diversity.
Posted by: igor at April 19, 2006 6:34 PM
"Aside from general religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, which is an immediate necessity...."Religious freedom in Saudi Arabia? Is he drunk or stupid?
Oh there is. They place English translations of the Qur'an (you know, the palatable ones), books about Islam everywhere for the American troops to see and read. They welcome you into the fold.
After you enter, they shut the door and lock it. The key is thrown away.
Posted by: yaqub at April 19, 2006 7:00 PM
There really is no substitute for the original texts, and that includes ALL of them. I pointed out that this unbalanced presentation is evident in all sorts comments made by television talking heads, from Brit Hume to Bill Maher. Of course we know what many policy makers, diplomats and politicians spout, but at least I can read Robert and others and get a more accurate, honest and accurate version of Islam past and present.
Although I respect much of what Daniel Pipes has written, his grasp of history beyond Islam is a bit weak and filled with simplistic generalizations. I did not know of his connection to Schwartz.
All the best,
Mac
at April 19, 2006 7:14 PM
Stephen Schwartz said
a global Islamic consensus with contemporary attitudes about freedom of religious conscience will have to be developed by Muslim authorities in a long series of colloquies inspired by the utmost seriousness and intellectual weight.
I think it's obvious to everyone except Mr. Schwartz that there is an Islamic consensus about apostasy, as described in JihadWatch every day, and as supported by the Quranic passages and hadiths that Robert quoted above. The "long series of colloquies" that he is waiting for have already been written, and they are quite clear in their meaning.
Posted by: special_guest at April 19, 2006 7:21 PM
It's very apparent why Steven Schwartz responds to Robert's offer of a serious dialogue with "intemperate hostility": Robert's got the goods on him.
Reading Mr Spencer's critique, Schwartz is probably crawling under a rock at this very minute, wondering how his learned wisdom, his piety, and his vaunted self-righteousness failed him so miserably. Perhaps he's fondly reminiscing about his days as a Jew, when basic morality and theology were so much easier to reconcile.
Finally, how about Robert's coup de grace! Enough of theological quotation and argument. He cuts through the murky haze of obfuscation and asks a question so simple that it begs to be answered: "Why should there be any restrictions at all on the religious conscience?"
Don't expect Steven Schwartz to offer anything by way of a cogent answer. He's probably anxious to go back to debating Justine Raimondo, where at least he stood a chance.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 19, 2006 7:32 PM
Two things going on here:
1) "My-private-Islam" presented by someone who for decades has apparently been on a Spiritual Search, and after getting on and off the bus several times, finally got off at the stop labelled Islam and simply is too exhausted at this point, and has too much invested, to get on the bus one more time.
For the reasons that might have impelled him to get off the bus at the stop labelled Islam, please google "Jihad Watch" and "Weiss-Schwartz syndrome."
2) Schwartz writes that "a global Islamic consensus with contemporary attitudes about freedom of religious conscience will have to be developed by Muslim authorities in a long series of colloquies inspired by the utmost seriousness and intellectual weight."
This, of course, is all about money, money, money -- government money, grant money. Who will fund this collection of Moderate Muslims here to save the world? Who will be put in charge of this group of Moderate Muslims who will help develop that very necessary "global Islamic consensus" which will be imbued with "contemporary attitudes about freedom of religious conscience" and who will organize, or lead, those "long series of colloquies" which will be "inspired by" both by, not merely seriousness (anyone can do that) but by the "utmost seriousness" and by "intellectual weight."
A tall order. Calls for someone who doth bestride the world like a colossus. Someone who knows all about history, and literature (just look at his articles on the subject in My Weekly Standard) and so much else. Who could that person be?
See #1 above, and guess: Is it Mr. White, or Mr. Black?
at April 19, 2006 7:43 PM
Let's go to the source: "He who would change his religion, kill him." -Muhammed, the Kuran.
We don't need Mr. Schwartz to tell us how to read. And the Muslims don't either.
Posted by: pythagoras at April 19, 2006 7:44 PM
Hugh said:
This, of cousse, is all about money, money, money -- government money, grant money. Who will fund this collection of Moderate Muslims here to save the world? Who will be put in charge of this group of Moderate Muslims who will help develop that very necessary "global Islamic consensus" which will be imbued with "contemporary attitudes about freedom of religious conscience" and who will organize, or lead, those "long series of colloquies"
--------------------------------------------
I didnt think of that Hugh. Unfortunately I think you are right.
Hrmmm... I cant wait to be the first kid on my block to have a "moderate muslim" working for me, bringing me a government grant! I gotta stack cheese...I gotta stack cheese...I need atleast 2 Gs in my khakis...
:-\
Posted by: Trupolitik at April 19, 2006 8:00 PM
Re: Disingenuousness about apostasy law
Schwartz appears to confirm Abe Lincoln's observation that "the half-truth tells the whole lie." Lincoln said half-truths were more difficult to guard against than outright lies. I agree.
Half-truth makes for effective propaganda. Goebbels once said that all effective propaganda must be based on some truth (what ordinary folks call "half-truths")which serves as the foundation for the "Big Lie." (He also believed propaganda was best spread via entertainment.)
If Schwartz is not stupid or crazy, and if he knows he is hiding some truths while selecting other truths to manipulate perception, he is a propagandist. If he is consciously and deliberately telling half-truths he is a liar.
A lot of apologists for ideology (Ibrahim Hooper, e.g.) deliberately tell half-truths and are liars. They know who they are and that Abe Lincoln's observation is forever true.
Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2006 8:15 PM
I couldn't agree more with your general take on this Hugh, other than to suggest that Ego may override money as the ultimate motivation here - i.e., less to do with money per se and more to do with the fact that one is known as a "mover and shaker" and is aligned with all the most important "movers and shakers" out there. That's more heady than money and thus would make for a larger amount of cognitive dissonance when Mr Schwartz has to look himself in the mirror each and every morning and acknowledge the role that he is personally playing in lulling the west to sleep and possibly ushering in mass bloodshed and a return of the west to 7th century barbarity.
Whatever his base motivations though, I hold him personally responsible for the potential outcomes of his incessant propoganda that it is only Wahabbi Islam that is the problem.
Posted by: Caroline at April 19, 2006 8:22 PM
"more heady than money..."
-- from a posting above
Jeez, you can keep the movers and shakers. I need the money.
Posted by: Hugh at April 19, 2006 8:31 PM
WAR IS DECEIT.
That's the marching order of the pedophile "prophet".
Schwartz is just goose-stepping quietly.
Don't want to wake the infidel dogs.
Not before the troops are in place.
Consider this taqiyya dog cookies.
"Good boy... Allah is compassionate.. Islam means 'peace'... good boy..."
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 19, 2006 8:57 PM
But you are a mover and shaker Hugh. However, since you're an anonymous M&S, there's far, far less likelihood of your integrity being compromised since tomorrow you could readily admit that you were mistaken all along and you wouldn't pay any serious price for that admission. The fact that Schwartz ISN'T anonymous, however, is no excuse. He could merely shut his mouth and quietly fade away and he would do less damage.
P.S. The money is coming in the mail, postmarked tomorrow.That's a promise.
Posted by: Caroline at April 19, 2006 9:02 PM
Frank wrote:
"If Schwartz is not stupid or crazy, and if he knows he is hiding some truths while selecting other truths to manipulate perception, he is a propagandist. If he is consciously and deliberately telling half-truths he is a liar."
I believe that somewhere within the mind of the Islam apologist lurks both propagandist and liar. Take Naseem for instance. She knows that the Koran is filled with utter nonsense, and has said so in several occasions, but once she has finished unloading the burden she's been carrying around, she resorts to her usual propagandizing.
I see it here all the time. The Islam apologist never deals with questions that are next to impossible for them to answer, or they respond with gibberish that goes in another direction. They are intellectually dishonest when responding to us, so what does that tell you?
There is no honesty among the Islamist "faithful." What did the imams have to do in order to get their congregations riled about the Danish cartoons? Answer: Lie. The lie is as much a weapon to these people as the pipe or shoe bomb is. It is as much a weapon as the blades that they use to behead people.
I do not know what Mr. Schwartz' circumstances and reasons are, but there's no doubt in my mind that the common thread that binds the Islamic apologist is the conscious lie, and propaganda.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at April 19, 2006 9:15 PM
"Mr Schwartz has to look himself in the mirror each and every morning and acknowledge the role that he is personally playing in lulling the west to sleep and possibly ushering in mass bloodshed and a return of the west to 7th century barbarity."
Caroline-
If he is telling half-truths that tell whole lies to the public, he is probably doing that every morning when he looks at himself in the mirror. He is likely generally selective about what truths he sees and what he chooses to be blind to. Many people present themselves as champions of some "disinterested principle" but they are in fact self serving people-and well compensated for their "principles." It's a living.
Maybe he believes his own half-truths because it's a living. If he tells the whole truth he might have to get a real job and go into hiding someplace.
at April 19, 2006 9:18 PM
Besides, I never listen to what the apologists say. "Islam is as Islam does" will forever be my motto.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at April 19, 2006 9:19 PM
Schwartz is depending on stupid lazy people to believe his lies and ommisions. the stupid people are brought to be good Chrsitians, and lump all relgions together, all are equally good or equally bad..l had an argument,,err discustions with two so called educated ladies,, and one claimed to have read the Koran, and still were blind..Lazy people take the word of the types like Schwartz, and do not look for themselves.
Posted by: Lulu at April 19, 2006 9:20 PM
He's a believer, that's who he is.
Expect this from him.
my poem for Steven and his pir
Does your pir keep you whirling, turning,
bowing, chanting, repeating the name allah
until fana obliterates your rational mind,
until reason flees and frees you
from all those rules and regulations
imposed on all those baser men
imprisoned in the box of islam?
Show me the sufi love of your allah.
show me his kindness and compassion,
his love for All Creatures Great and Small,
through the ages, One and All.
Tell me meccan, about your perfect prophet.
In your sacred books I read that
he was a pedophile, murder and thief,
a lusty power-monger tribal chief.
You say this was only the custom of the time,
while other of your medinan brothers say,
"No this is the way it must always be.
We know because allah said so."
Is this the pattern you seek to imitate?
Is this the pattern to which you aspire,
nihilism, the kiss of death,
the death not only of the ego,
but also of your sacred foe?
Ecstatic states can never take the place
of a universal, unitary ethic, oh no!
So keep turning and whirling
in your dance of duality
led by the sufi shadow sheiks
and stand in its name, islam.
at April 19, 2006 9:36 PM
yohannbiimu-
I see your point. But I don't think people leave something to go to nothing, rather they go to something as a point of refuge-safty-happiness. What does a person do if they have no place to go to? What if they have no alternative?
No one leaves anything to go to nothing-not Naseem-not anyone. It's not human to do that. Maybe the deep secret of Islam's intolerance is in the realization of this. Maybe Islam doesn't tolerate alternatives because if people have alternatives they will run from it because they can't fly.
Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2006 9:50 PM
fyi,
A January 2004 lgf thread in which Sulayman al-Kosovi (that would be Steven Schwartz) participated and was challenged by non-dhimmis:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9676
Very simply, Schwartz is a propagandist and dissembler. He dislikes wahhabis, but his goals are the spread and success of islam, nevertheless.
at April 19, 2006 9:54 PM
Poetess - thank you. I really enjoyed that one. :-)
Posted by: Caroline at April 19, 2006 10:18 PM
Frank wrote:
"No one leaves anything to go to nothing-not Naseem-not anyone. It's not human to do that."
For Naseem, Islam is probably the ONLY thing she's ever known, and for her, she never had to "arrive" to where she is. As for Mr. Schwartz, he may well be on the "side" that he feels has the best chance of winning in this global conflict. He is a traitor, plain and simple.
Joseph Goebbles didn't care if something was pulled out of thin air. Oftentimes he would go for the biggest pile of BS in order to get the response he wanted from the public and government (such as it was in Germany). It didn't matter to him that there was over two million Red Army soldiers surrounding Berlin in April of 1945. He remained faithful to his "principles" and his "fuhrer" 'til the end.
It may not be "human" to do a lot of things that people wind up doing. It is not "human" to blow yourself up. It is not "human" to hijack a plane and purposely stear it into a skyscraper. It isn't "human" to behead otherwise innocent little children, just because they belonged to a different faith.
To me, Islam does not seek to bring about the "human" side of a person. It is not a "humane" way of life, whether it's for a run-of-the-mill human-bomb jihadist, or for the "intellectual" jihadist. There is no way for sane, rational people like you and me to sit down and try to figure it out, because it is insane and irrational.
I just know what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears. These people knowingly lie in order to propagate a "religion" that is supposedly TRUE
Posted by: yohannbiimu at April 19, 2006 10:28 PM
Stephen Schwartz? Suleyman Ahmad? Comrade Sandalio? Ahmad "Comrade" Sandalio? Suleyman "Stephen" Schwartzedinejahd?
-is consistently pathetic.
Having read much of what he's written, I discern a stubborn immaturity in his tone: disingenuous in presentation; combative and conteptuous in reply when challenged.
He once wrote an article or post somewhere in which he made the assertion that the various conflicts in the Balkans were a fallout of-get this-
"Orthodox Christian imperialism"
My word! I'll have to wikipedia that. Would that be a sub-topic falling under the general heading of-
"post-colonial discourse"? I wonder
But then, what would one expect of a man who "made his bones"(in the Joe Wilson sense) writing obituaries for the San Francisco Chronicle?
Thinking of "schwartz" I am at once reminded of a certain Reza Aslan (-Aslan- how is that pronounced?) in that both are eminently unqualified to engage in any authoritative discourse on the history of Islam or the threat of Islam to infidels today. Mr Schwartz, what with his comically obsessive "reductio ad Wahhabi-Lobby" fixation; and Boy Wonder Aslan, with his -"it's a civil war in Islam, the West are merely onlookers" creation, attempt to reduce all the ingeredients of a hellish bitter brew down to a palatable and syrupy easy-to-digest formula; which, while it might help win friends, sell books and influnce (gullible)infidels- simply evaporates when held over a high flame.
And why are they listened to? Why are they hired by on-line magazines and given hefty advances(thinly-veiled jizya?) to write books; trotted out on stage amid pomp and applause to disinform and decieve the assembled masses of inquiring and impressionable infidel minds. This writer of obituraries, the so-called-sandalio; and that boyish effeminate Persian-extracted so-called-scholar-of-What?
What indeed do they have to offer and how are they qualified to inform, outside of the fact that they are the both of them- Aslan(born) and schwartz(recently reverted) - muslims? and what can one do to counter the disembling, the misinformation and outright deceit; the attempt to hide away that which is left out or goes unsaid?
These scholars of I-don't-know-what-but-not-Islam
the mediocre-minded of feeble intellect
We can't ban their books or fire them or demand their heads
BUT THEY CAN BE MOCKED, made fun of and laughed at- shown off stage and showered with 72 raisins shot from the peanut gallery
Stephen Schwartz and his book
THE TWO FACES OF ISLAM - how apt, should the subtitle read "no pun intended" ?
Reza Aslan's book on Islam- NO GOD BUT GORP
features a chapter incredibly titled
"This Religion is a Science" - really
MOCK THEM
Posted by: hasan salami at April 19, 2006 10:34 PM
Stephen Schwartz? Suleyman Ahmad? Comrade Sandalio? Ahmad "Comrade" Sandalio? Suleyman "Stephen" Schwartzedinejahd?
-is consistently pathetic.
Having read much of what he's written, I discern a stubborn immaturity in his tone: disingenuous in presentation; combative and conteptuous in reply when challenged.
He once wrote an article or post somewhere in which he made the assertion that the various conflicts in the Balkans were a fallout of-get this-
"Orthodox Christian imperialism"
My word! I'll have to wikipedia that. Would that be a sub-topic falling under the general heading of-
"post-colonial discourse"? I wonder
But then, what would one expect of a man who "made his bones"(in the Joe Wilson sense) writing obituaries for the San Francisco Chronicle?
Thinking of "schwartz" I am at once reminded of a certain Reza Aslan (-Aslan- how is that pronounced?) in that both are eminently unqualified to engage in any authoritative discourse on the history of Islam or the threat of Islam to infidels today. Mr Schwartz, what with his comically obsessive "reductio ad Wahhabi-Lobby" fixation; and Boy Wonder Aslan, with his -"it's a civil war in Islam, the West are merely onlookers" creation, attempt to reduce all the ingeredients of a hellish bitter brew down to a palatable and syrupy easy-to-digest formula; which, while it might help win friends, sell books and influnce (gullible)infidels- simply evaporates when held over a high flame.
And why are they listened to? Why are they hired by on-line magazines and given hefty advances(thinly-veiled jizya?) to write books; trotted out on stage amid pomp and applause to disinform and decieve the assembled masses of inquiring and impressionable infidel minds. This writer of obituraries, the so-called-sandalio; and that boyish effeminate Persian-extracted so-called-scholar-of-What?
What indeed do they have to offer and how are they qualified to inform, outside of the fact that they are the both of them- Aslan(born) and schwartz(recently reverted) - muslims? and what can one do to counter the disembling, the misinformation and outright deceit; the attempt to hide away that which is left out or goes unsaid?
These scholars of I-don't-know-what-but-not-Islam
the mediocre-minded of feeble intellect
We can't ban their books or fire them or demand their heads
BUT THEY CAN BE MOCKED, made fun of and laughed at- shown off stage and showered with 72 raisins shot from the peanut gallery
Stephen Schwartz and his book
THE TWO FACES OF ISLAM - how apt, should the subtitle read "no pun intended" ?
Reza Aslan's book on Islam- NO GOD BUT GORP
features a chapter incredibly titled
"This Religion is a Science" - really
MOCK THEM
Posted by: hasan salami at April 19, 2006 10:35 PM
WHAT THE!?
Posted by: hasan salami at April 19, 2006 10:42 PM
Let's drop pretenses. I'm Jewish and so is Stephen Schwartz. He should give up his silly life of a New Age Sufi. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. Wherever I see Schwartz on TV I say "What the hell is the Jew doing pretending to be a Muslim?"
Schwartz doing Islam is like a my cat doing a yoga headstand.
Posted by: dennisw at April 19, 2006 11:07 PM
yohann, they are not insane or irrational. They only seem that way to us because we use a different way of thinking. They can hold two contradictions simultaneously to be true because the koran shows them this is the way of thinking in islam. And the koran tells them that there is no deed they can't do in the cause of allah. Their ethics are not like ours. Inside the box,they have a logic of their own.
This straight jacket, this box of islam will be its greatest downfall. For it never changes and once you see how it works, it always works the same. So when we learn what all is in the box, we can strategize and know our battle plans will work. We learn what's in the box by reading the koran, the hadith of bukari and the sirah (the biography of mohammed) by ibn ishaq. This trilogy, these three texts tell the whole story. And this is the secret they don't want us to know. When you know all three, you fully understand the ideology of islam.
Posted by: the poetess at April 19, 2006 11:10 PM
yohannbiimu-
Someplace in the Koran Mohammad recommends camel piss as a medicine (I think its for a bad stomach). If a person is really sick (I mean really sick to the stomach) and camel piss is offered as the only refuge and hope, then I guess that will look good till somebody offers peptobismol. Camel piss is better than nothing.
But alternatives arn't always good when people run to them. For example, Shwartz appears to be running to camel piss and from peptobismol. Why?
What is his reason for running from whole truth to half-truths that tell whole lies?
Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2006 11:10 PM
yohannbiimu - fair points all, though I don't see Naseem as a propagandist... she isn't a triumphalist or troll either. She's one of the few Moslem contributors who speaks the truth and knows what she's talking about, and as such an indespensable window on the Islamic mindset. Islam really WILL take over the West. America really WOULD BE the best place to try to establish a Caliph, and so on and so forth. We're not supposed to like it, but that's just giving it to us straight, not propagandizing.
I sigh when Naseem's posts get jumped on by militant reactionaries, she's one of the good 'uns... sane, humane and rational.
at April 19, 2006 11:19 PM
naseem is not humane,
she wants to take away my name,
my dress, my whiskey, my life,
and bring strife to my land,
she wants to take away my freedom
to speak and write my mind,
we are not of the same kind.
naseem is not humane.
at April 19, 2006 11:24 PM
the poetess wrote:
"yohann, they are not insane or irrational. They only seem that way to us because we use a different way of thinking."
In my round-about way of explaining it, I was saying the same thing. I never said that Islamic proponents were insane (although, obviously SOME are), but rather the odd, oftentimes cruel behavior that Islam produces with them is.
I was responding to Frank, who is trying to grasp something that is not to be understood by rationally thinking people. Some people's actions and manner of thinking just cannot be understood because it is based upon something that is contrary to reason and logic.
Personally, I do not care to try to understand it, because all of it is evil. I'd rather pull my finger and toenails out with pliers than to try to understand the motives of a proponent of Islam.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at April 19, 2006 11:38 PM
And let us not forget the wars of apostasy (ridda)
that raged in Arabia after the death of Muhammed in which thousands were put to the sword because they revolted against Islam.
According to historian Ibn Ishak,"When the apostle was dead most of the Muslims thought of withdrawing from Islam and made up their minds to do so." There was a wide spread revolt. A large number of Muslims either went back to the fold of their original religion or began looking for new prophets. Abu Bakr,the first Caliph,who succeded
Muhammed was deeply disturbed by these developments and ordered his ace general, Khalid
ibn Walid, who had been given the name of 'The sword of Islam',to suppress these uprisings.
Large scale slaughter of errant tribes ensued and they were quickly brought into submission.
Muhammed's biographer, al-Wakidi, has quoted Muhammed as saying, "Two religions cannot exist in Arabia. Let there not remain throughout this land any faith,except Islam."
Benjamin Walker in his extremely well researched book entitled, 'Foundations of Islam- the making of a World faith', says, "Large parts of the Arabian peninsula had never become Muslim in Muhammad's day, but remained pagan,Jewish or Christian. Now most of these,too,were compelled to accept Islam, following aggressive and sanguinary expedetions,notably at Yamama(634). The Jews had been virtually eliminated in Muhammed's life time. The Christians had also been expelled in large numbers, and the remainder were now forced into accepting Islam under threat of extermination. Within two years of such 'pacification'almost the whole of Arabia was converted into a Muslim state and Muhammad's vision of a country purged of all other religions
had been realized.
at April 19, 2006 11:44 PM
the poetess wrote:
"naseem is not humane,"
I agree. Her humanity has been subjegated by her religion that tells her that there is no standard by which objective truth can be measured, and that this dispicable lie should spread throughout the World. Naseem may be a "nice" person, but I wouldn't trust her with anything of any value.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at April 19, 2006 11:47 PM
Hasan you're hilarious!!!!!
Posted by: champ at April 20, 2006 12:02 AM
dennisw,
Stephen Schwartz is not Jewish, and never was. According to his own writings, his father was Jewish, while his mother was a Protestant Christian. Both were apparently unhappy with the faiths they were born into, however, and both were politically "hard leftists". He was not raised religiously. At some point on his spiritual "quest", as he is so fond of telling readers, he studied some Judaism. Eventually, he fell into the gaping maw of islam when he visited Bosnia, and Kosovo. He is muslim by his own foolish and sanctimonious choice.
Posted by: del at April 20, 2006 12:56 AM
There is no simple answer to these questions.
So much for the "simple religion"
This must not be tolerated by Western authorities, who must assist those threatened by such aggression, especially those residing in the democracies.
So when Islam struggles to fix itself, Muslims look for help from the infidel West?
So much for the "perfect religion".
Posted by: yadayada at April 20, 2006 2:23 AM
What Schwartz means when he says it's not simple is that changing religious interpretatations - of any sort - is generally a long process filled with arcane debates, and tied up in the relative advancement of various teacher lineages/chains.
History teaches that extreme shocks can speed up the relligious process a bit, and one can also remove some of the debaters from the scene, but religion by its very nature runs in a slower gear than other elements of society. It's designed to. Even politics and governent is blazingly fast by comparison.
Posted by: Joe Katzman at April 20, 2006 5:45 AM
"What Schwartz means when he says it's not simple is that changing religious interpretatations - of any sort - is generally a long process filled with arcane debates..."
-- from a posting above
For at least a thousand years, since the Gates of Ijtihad swung shut (which was also around the time that Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians, had diminished suffiently in numbers, and in influence, in lands that had been conquered by Muslims in the MIddle East and North Africa) Islam has been impervious to change. The would-be "reformers" of the early twentieth century, who had been shocked by their encounter with the far more advanced and powerful West (and therefore shocked into the idea of "reform" of Islam in order that it might not become still weaker relative to that West) all came a cropper. The Qur'an is immutable, and uncreated; it cannot be subject to the kind of interpretation that the Bible has received. As for the Hadith and Muhammad (a figure who receives 4/5 of the attention to Allah's 1/5 in the canonical texts), any tampering would destroy Islam.
Believers will not allow for any attempt to bend or interpret away. For Islam, unlike Christianity and Judaism, that did not disappear when the Higher Criticism appeared, placing their sacred texts within History, is brittle, and will break. And this the thoroughly brainwashed Believers will not permit. Though Islam is the source of the political and economic and social and intellectual and moral failures of Islamic societies and states, still Islam must be protected at all costs.
A crazy, even fantastical situtation.
And those suffering from Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome cannot possibly admit, at this point, that in signing up for the Army of Islam, without reading all the fine print, and now too embarrassed to admit to having made a colossal mistake, they are, apparently, permanently stuck in a role of defending, not very convincingly, the indefensible --- and cutting a comical figure to boot.
Posted by: Hugh at April 20, 2006 8:19 AM
"MOCK THEM"
Posted by: hasan salami
[long laughter!] -- indeed, the devil cannot bear to be mocked.
Mock them.
Mock him.
And to hell with Islam.
Posted by: Zeno at April 20, 2006 2:30 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)