Jihad Watch: On assertions without evidence

May 27, 2006

On assertions without evidence

One of the most common responses to my work that I have encountered since I have been doing it publicly is a sweeping assertion that I am ignorant, and/or maliciously ignoring the broad mainstream of peaceful Islam. Of course I do not ignore in the least the broad mainstream of peaceful Muslims, but I have repeatedly pointed out that within the various theological and legal traditions of Islam, they do not have much of a case. All the schools (madhahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) teach violent jihad and Sharia supremacism, with some minor variations. Accordingly, Ibn Warraq is correct when he says that there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

This bears repeating: there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

What I have encountered again and again, however, has been the flat assertion that peaceful Islam (not just peaceful Muslims) exists and is the Islamic mainstream, and that I am dishonest or malicious for denying this. But no evidence is ever presented for the existence of this Islam, and in all the years that I have been studying Islamic texts and Islamic history, I have never found it. Again and again and again people throw up to me the assertion without evidence.

Accordingly, I have asked for this evidence again and again here, because I am only interested in the truth, and if such evidence exists, I have no interest in denying it. In my response to Dean Esmay, I asked again: "I have asked here many times for people to send me examples of Islamic religious scholars rejecting, on Islamic grounds, jihad violence against non-Muslims; rejecting the idea that Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim and non-Muslim world; and teaching the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together indefinitely as equals. Send me rejections of the ideas that women should not enjoy full equality of rights with men. Send me information that shows that those who write such rejections are not lone voices crying in the wilderness, with the wolves of Islamic orthodoxy ready to pounce upon them, but that they represent broad traditions within Islam and have large followings."

I have repeatedly asked for this: here and here and here and here and here. I've received a few responses that don't supply what I asked for -- they are the work of lone scholars with little or no following, or they are transparently false exegeses of Qur'an and Hadith. I have received no actual evidence of the existence of the things I asked for.

This comes up again because Esmay has written about my work again in his comments field. Here again I post this not because Esmay's views are important or because I think I can convince him of anything, but because I believe his assessment is widely held, and that people of good will who hold it can be convinced of the truth:

Here's what Spencer does:
1) Take the most tendentious and pernicious interpretations of what the Koran says, in the ways that the most radical clerics of Islam interpret them.

2) Declare that these are the inescapably correct views.

3) Declare that he doesn't hate muslims or all of Islam, but that no one can prove him wrong about what he "inescapably" concludes about the religion.

Seriously: when I do this to Christian scriptures, people go absolutely ballistic on me. I mean, I'll come right out and say, "Look, here is a totally twisted and out-of-context quote of Christian scriptures, which if taken literally would mean the same thing as the Koran says here" and people blow up and say I'm insulting Christianity. The irony never dawns on them at all.

My inescapable conclusion is that to take Spencer seriously, or to endorse Spencer and insult those who question him, is to inescapably conclude that Islam is simply evil, that the real problem is the religion itself and by extension its adherants.

Of course, I don't do anything like this, and Esmay is even asserting that I do in the face of what I wrote to him before. In my response to him, which is as yet unanswered, I wrote: "I have said that all eight madhahib [Islamic schools of jurisprudence], most notably the four principal Sunni madhahib -- Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanafi, and Hanbali -- all teach jihad and Sharia supremacism. They are not monolithic, but on that they are united. Prove me wrong." I stand by that statement, and can support it and have supported it with evidence from each of those major madhahib. In other words, I can prove that violent jihad is not based on "tendentious and pernicious interpretations of what the Koran says, in the ways that the most radical clerics of Islam interpret them," but on the Islamic mainstream. Esmay ignores this and asserts the contrary, without adducing a shred of evidence.

Is it "inescapably correct" that each Muslim school of jurisprudence sanctions violent jihad? Yes, as much as it is "inescapably correct" that each Muslim school of jurisprudence sanctions tauhid, or Islamic monotheism. There is no disagreement among Muslims about tauhid, and it isn't hating Islam or Muslims to say so. With jihad it's just the same thing: it is a matter of fact, not hatred. Again: prove me wrong. But no evidence is ever forthcoming.

And as for the Christian Scriptures, it is ironic that Esmay speaks of people going "ballistic," since it is unlikely that any of the Christians he may have offended have shot, stabbed, or beheaded him, or want to. But in any case, his all-religions-are-the-same assumption founders on the fact that Christianity and Judaism have well-developed traditions that reject literalism on things approved of in the Old Testament such as stoning adulterers and slavery. Where is that tradition within Islam? Again -- no evidence is forthcoming.

But another commenter at Esmay's site, a certain Matoko Kusanagi, dismissed me as a "moron" and attempted to provide that evidence:

i am a mathematician by training and a sociobiologist by avocation. In mathematics you need only one counter-example to disprove a theorem. the school of al-Anzhar, far more populous than the salafist schools, decries the Saud practice of Islam as an "abomination" and rejects violent jihaad categorically. Now i suppose robert will just say they are practicing taqiyya, as he often does, but that is simply untrue. the school is on record as opposing it. therefore spencer cannot legitimately state that Islam is homogeneous and united behind the concept of violent jihaad.
QED

Well, I don't like to let patent falsehoods pass, so I emailed this fellow:

Matoko Kusanagi:
You wrote: "the school of al-Anzhar, far more populous than the salafist schools, decries the Saud practice of Islam as an "abomination" and rejects violent jihaad categorically."

It's Al-Azhar, not Al-Anzhar.

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by Al-Azhar as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,”[1] defines jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” noting that the word itself “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”[2] It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad’s instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions.”[3] But the manual also states that in the absence of a caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.[4]

[1] Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana Publications, 1999, p. xx.
[2] Ibid., o9.0.
[3] Ibid., o9.8.
[4] Ibid., o9.6.

But I'm the moron. Sure.

You might try to get a clue about what you're talking about before you start pontificating.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I wrote in haste. I might have added some references to Al-Azhar sheikhs calling for violent jihad.

But anyway, here is Kusanagi's response. Note again the assertions without evidence:

i see you do not read arabic, or understand it, right? there are different clerics in all schools of shari'ia, that make different rulings. you are quoting a single source. unimpressive. sorry for the mispelling, but who knows how to spell arabic in english, anyways?
yes, i do think you are a moron.
you claim to to have distilled the truth about all Islam while you are unable to do your own translation, or read sources in the original? Have you ever trained in Islamic scholarship or Islamic jurispriudence? Islamic scholars have been arguing the meaning of the Qur'an and associated texts for hundreds of years. you truly are a moron if you think you are delivering the unequivocable truth from your paltry efforts at scholarship. You cherry pick to prove one narrow viewpoint.

the other reason i think you are a moron is that you are blind to the damage you do in the information wars. by showcasing the more horrible examples, by perpetuating urban myths about Islam, by treating all muslims as an undifferentiated mass that share the exact ideas about jihaad, taquiyya, etc, all your scare tactics, your breathless hystrionics, you drive the moderates right into the arms of the fundamentalists. You are feeding the ignorant masses that desire the clash of civilizations.

There are millions and millions of moderate muslims. but they don't meet your standards. you are not interested in moderate muslims, you are only interested in REFORMIST muslims, that would deny their faith or make it into something exactly like yours. the pious middle have no desire to reform Islam, like buddhists, confucians, catholics, lutherans, all you supernaturalists have no desire to reform your faiths, no matter how crazy and illogical they are in aspect and practice. and don't give me that sanctimonious crap about xians being all kind and nice NOW, because it wasn't very long ago that xians and muslims were isomorphic.

if you really want to know the 411 read this 62 page pdf-- it is the reader's digest condensed version of Atran's book, In Gods We Trust. All religions are the same, an attempt to paper over the hideous truth with religion-membership passing for fake kinship--we are all nasty hobbesian barbarians under the skin, and there is no god and there is no afterlife, so all your silly poseur interpretations of qur'anic texts are useless pompous, tendicious dreck, and just it make it harder for GW to win the hearts and minds of the real moderate muslims, that you scorn for being insufficiently like you.

uncordially, mk

The pdf, as you can see, is a windy and off-point piece of religious sociology, so I didn't address it in my reply. Kusanagi's remarks are double indented below, and mine are single indented. I hope it is not too confusing to read.

i see you do not read arabic, or understand it, right?

Have we met? How did you come by this factoid?

Here's something it would be good for you to bear in mind when you don't know all the facts:

خير الخلال حفظ اللسا

there are different clerics in all schools of shari'ia, that make different rulings. you are quoting a single source. unimpressive.

You asserted that Al-Azhar rejected violent jihad. If it does, why did it endorse this manual of fiqh that teaches violent jihad?

Please produce any rejection of violent jihad in principle from anyone at Al-Azhar.

sorry for the mispelling, but who knows how to spell arabic in english, anyways?

There is no possible way you can get an "n" out of الأزهر.

Nobody, but nobody, would transliterate that with an "n."

yes, i do think you are a moron.

I'm glad you've decided to keep your rejoinder on a high level, sticking strictly to evidence.

you claim to to have distilled the truth about all Islam while you are unable to do your own translation, or read sources in the original?

I never claimed that. You claimed that for me, based on your false assumptions about what I know, and your misreading of my phrase "inescapable" conclusions. There are disagreements among Islamic scholars. There are some things on which they do not disagree. It would be an inescapable conclusion that Muslims believe in tauhid and that Allah is one. There are other inescapable conclusions as well -- a fact which does not mean that there is no disagreement within Islam. As I noted in my unanswered post to Esmay, all the eight madhahib, including the four principle Sunni ones, teach the acceptability of violent jihad. Please produce evidence that that assertion is false.

Have you ever trained in Islamic scholarship or Islamic jurispriudence? Islamic scholars have been arguing the meaning of the Qur'an and associated texts for hundreds of years. you truly are a moron if you think you are delivering the unequivocable truth from your paltry efforts at scholarship. You cherry pick to prove one narrow viewpoint.

See above. All I am asking for is evidence of a mainstream Islamic tradition that has always taught non-violence and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis. I'm sure you can come up with 20 or 30 such; I'm just asking for one. But note again: I'm not asking for one scholar or professor somewhere. I am asking for evidence of a mainstream Muslim tradition accepted as orthodox by other Muslim groups.

the other reason i think you are a moron is that you are blind to the damage you do in the information wars. by showcasing the more horrible examples, by perpetuating urban myths about Islam, by treating all muslims as an undifferentiated mass that share the exact ideas about jihaad, taquiyya, etc, all your scare tactics, your breathless hystrionics, you drive the moderates right into the arms of the fundamentalists. You are feeding the ignorant masses that desire the clash of civilizations.

This is beyond absurd. Even if your characterizations of my work were remotely true, why would one person acting badly make someone who believed in nonviolence and peaceful coexistence suddenly believe in violence and supremacism?

There are millions and millions of moderate muslims. but they don't meet your standards.

The only standard I have is that they fight against the mujahedin ideologically. Is that too much to ask? If what you say about Islam is true, they ought to be able to stand on the broad peaceful Islamic mainstream and condemn the mujahedin from it. But they don't. Why not?

you are not interested in moderate muslims, you are only interested in REFORMIST muslims, that would deny their faith or make it into something exactly like yours.

This is just a straw man you are setting up to knock down. It has nothing to do with what I am actually doing.

the pious middle have no desire to reform Islam, like buddhists, confucians, catholics, lutherans, all you supernaturalists have no desire to reform your faiths, no matter how crazy and illogical they are in aspect and practice. and don't give me that sanctimonious crap about xians being all kind and nice NOW, because it wasn't very long ago that xians and muslims were isomorphic.

You clearly have no idea what I actually say. I have never denied Christian atrocities. But I do not accept your contention that all religions are the same, and I don't think it holds up to the evidence. There is no global movement of Christian terrorists violently asserting Christian supremacism. Why not?

if you really want to know the 411 read this 62 page pdf-- it is the reader's digest condensed version of Atran's book, In Gods We Trust. All religions are the same, an attempt to paper over the hideous truth with religion-membership passing for fake kinship--we are all nasty hobbesian barbarians under the skin, and there is no god and there is no afterlife, so all your silly poseur interpretations of qur'anic texts are useless pompous, tendicious dreck, and just it make it harder for GW to win the hearts and minds of the real moderate muslims, that you scorn for being insufficiently like you.

I certainly think you have abundantly established that you yourself are a nasty hobbesian barbarian. As for the rest of us, non-Muslim and Muslim, I am unconvinced.

uncordially, mk

Cordially
روبرت سبنسر

In the Arabic above I quoted a proverb, "The best thing is to hold your tongue," wrote Al-Azhar in Arabic to show that there is nothing like an "n" in it, and signed my name, Robert Spencer. See also Jihad Watch Board member Ibn Warraq's debunking of the idea that one has to know Arabic in order to speak about Islam.

Anyway, once again -- it is not important what Dean Esmay and Matoko Kusanagi say. But I offer this to people of good will, who are considering these issues thoughtfully.

Posted by Robert at May 27, 2006 7:02 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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.)

Robert:

1. Expecting Islamic scholars to concede
your points is unrealistic. It wont happen.
These people are not interested in a honest
debate.

2. As long as our leaders (Bush, Blair, Chirac)
keep insisting that 'true' Islam is
moderate and peaceful, you will not be
believed by a majority of the population.

Posted by: george_rem

at May 27, 2006 8:17 AM

Where does all that peacefulness of Islam comes from? Yes, from piety. Of course.

But maybe a bit too from fear of punishments (eg hududs, or the facts that members of the police and military forces didn’t had to refer to judges for dealing with crimes), some incitements (eg qasãma procedure) or the risk of being enrolled in the next jihad campaign (or being labeled a hypocrite). And possibly a little bit too from the fact that millions and millions of Muslims became such through a quite specific kind of submission – slavery.

You might say that in Islam, piety and peacefulness are enforced by law. Now, that should not discredit in any way the true piety of Muslim individuals. But it does make it harder to believe in it.

Posted by: ajm

at May 27, 2006 9:03 AM

What proof do muslims have, other than mo's word that allah exists?

Posted by: fireangel

at May 27, 2006 9:10 AM

Wow, after reading that I now understand my deep distrust of muslims was caused by Mr, Robert Spencer. And to think I had blamed it on trips to muslim countries and new reports of seemingly endless muslim violence against anyone and everyone, even other muslims. Not being an educated man I naturally was mislead by Robert and my deep distrust of muslims and islam may be reversible, I’m sure twenty years in a madrassa would clear up my misunderstandings but I doubt that will happen. So I am doomed to consider all muslims as potential lunatics and one verse away from full blown jihadist. Sigh, I now realize I am in deep need of therapy and as proof; after I saw this headline: Knife-wielding teen wounds 27 in Berlin, this morning I automatically assumed the clown with the knife will turn out to be a muslim. My paranoia knows no bounds; I am an islamaphobic and in dire need of a 12 step program to over come it.

Wah, where am I? I am totally sorry, I had promised myself no more posts without coffee. I am better now, Robert, I forgive you for leading me astray and humbly thank you for your service to mankind. I don’t know yet if the clown with the knife was a muslim but since it happened on Friday, involved a knife and a lunatic I figure the chances around 99%, or higher. I will now take my islamaphocic self to a nearby restaurant in search of more coffee. If anyone sees another report on the kid with the knife I would like to know if he was in fact doing his little jihad bit. Even us islamaphobics like to have our outrageous distrust of muslims occasionally vindicated.

Posted by: Ronin

at May 27, 2006 9:10 AM

Mr. Spencer,

You have written that your critique of Islam can be met only by Islamic thinkers who meet certain standards:

"Send me information that shows that those who write such rejections are not lone voices crying in the wilderness, with the wolves of Islamic orthodoxy ready to pounce upon them, but that they represent broad traditions within Islam and have large followings."

In the interest of moving this debate forward, it would be helpful to know how you define important ideas such as "broad traditions" and "large followings." Can you provide some insight into these standards?

Posted by: Paul S

at May 27, 2006 9:19 AM

Ronin, thanks for the laughs on a gray day.

Posted by: the poetess

at May 27, 2006 9:22 AM

Ronin wrote: "So I am doomed to consider all muslims as potential lunatics and one verse away from full blown jihadist."

As am I. Good point.

A moderate muslim is one who has read too little of their Koran. A Jihadist is one who has read too much.

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal

at May 27, 2006 9:22 AM

The people who always claim that islam is being misunderstood always come back to the Bible.The koran was written in arabic and they claim you should learn arabic.The Bible states very clearly anyone can undertand the word of God.In the second chapter of acts God opens the minds of the people and they hear each other...And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?...Acts 2:8......Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of GOD. Act 2:11...islam is the koran....Christianity is based on the Bible,the whole Bible.front back and middle.Those who study the Bible know that is the only way....can people take the Bible wrong..yes...they have for thousands of years..did Jesus have an answer for not following the word...you bet..Not every one that saith unto me ,Lord ,Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father whice is in heaven...Many will say to me in that day, Lord,Lord,have not we prophesied in thy name?and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works....And then will i profess unto them,i never knew you;depart from me, ye that work iniquity..mat 7:21-23....God hears every tongue and will use every man...whether they believe or not...unlike the koran that sends zombies into the street to judge and kill today,for the demon allah...GOD judges in the end.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 9:24 AM

Mr. Spencer-

That one sentence distills the entire argument:

"There are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam."

If that were on T-shirts and bumperstickers maybe the dozing infidels at large would start to rouse, at least a little, from their obstinate p.c. slumbers.

Thanks.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 27, 2006 9:25 AM

changed my mind.
wow, you publish my email to you without even asking?

again, you demand "proof" that your interpretation is incorrect-- the only way to establish that would be poll data-- what the texts contain, and even what is preached in mosques is an assumption on your part that these are the beliefs held and practiced by the millions of muslims in the pious middle.

How many xians today believe exactly what is in the bible? how many execute biblical imperatives, like, say, an eye for eye? some do, right? sure, there are fundamentalists in all religions. it is documented phenomena.

i say your demands for moderate muslims to stand up and reject selected parts of Islamic teaching (the parts you find offensive) are arrogant, ignorant and unreasonable.

"There are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam."
BS. Islam is not monolithic or homogeneous in text or in practice.
Defining the whole of Islam thru selected archaeic texts is profoundly ignorant. you may as well define xianity with the old testament and hinduism with the bagavhad gita.
You are a blind man in a room with an elephant, feeling the tail.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 27, 2006 9:47 AM

and, i gave you the arabic cite for al-muttawakkil's book. since you won't read Atran for the big picture, you can read that for the small.
;-)

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 27, 2006 9:52 AM

matoko kusanagi...there are muslims and non-muslims...islam has no respect for non-muslims!....but the BIBLE the real word of GOD says it is he that judges in the end....not i...we are taught to get along with any man or woman that wants peace with us....but we will NOT be a doormat for islam!

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 10:06 AM

hmmm...Robert,i think you have a basic misunderstanding of Islam, and, indeed, all religions.
the jihaadiis are fundamentalists, they say this themselves. so they adhere to the literal word of the archaeic texts in an attempt to restore the "purity" of the religion.
from Boyer, Religion Explained: the Evolutionary Theory of Religion--

fundamentalism, a movement focused entirely on a return to the religious values promoted by the religious guild and supposedly perverted by further developments.

So you see, the citations you have painstakingly excavated apply to the fundamentalists, in spades. but only to the fundamentalists. Not to the pious middle.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 27, 2006 10:13 AM

To Mr. Kunasagi-

(Phonetically from the Arabic):

NUD-duff el-ee-ZAZ.

Your prejudicies are clouding it.

(In case he doesn't know Arabic, that a common request when you pull into a gas station:

Clean the windshield.)

As for "moderate Islam":

El-ah-rah-BEE-yah aht-LAH-nah.

That car doesn't go.

Maybe the jihadis set the hand-brake permanently with Sura 9:29-30?

As if Arabic can't be learned.

(el-Khud! [the cheek!]... sorry, an Anglo-Arabic pun.)

And as if repeating "moron" enough makes it so.

The point is: the "urban myths" you dismiss -about the global violence perpetrated by your fellow Muslims- are what we in the real world call "the daily news out of Islam". If the mayhem wasn't real, there would be no need for such a site as this.

Like keeping an eye on the weather, watching the workings of the violent jihad is essential for one's safety. You never know when another rumored Koran desecration can set a group of Muslim Brothers on a rampage in Cairo or have your Burger King bombed in London by unassimilated Mohammedans from Camden Town or a McDonald's burned down in Pakistan by crypto-Taliban.

If only jihad were like albino alligators in the sewers of NYC.

A funny but non-existent tale.

Sadly, the bloody story of Islamic Imperialism is all-too-real and inescapably tragic.

Every other faith has given up the quest for militant earthly dominion.

Except Islam.

1350 years and counting.

What's taking those moderates so long?

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 27, 2006 10:19 AM

matoko kusanagi
"there are fundamentalists in all religions. it is documented phenomena"

I think he's got a point there. I am equally concerned about the Buddhist terrorists, the way some of those radical monks encourage their followers to target unbelievers.

matoko kusanagi, you disgust me.

Posted by: Mr Krabs

at May 27, 2006 10:31 AM

“Defining the whole of Islam thru selected archaeic texts is profoundly ignorant”. Posted by: matoko kusanagi

Hmmm, one might make the assumption the archaic text you referred to was the koran. If that is indeed the case, I agree 100%. Anyone who reads and follows that book is indeed profoundly ignorant (and potentially dangerous).

Matoko, my misguided friend, the biggest single killer of muslims worldwide are other muslims. Maybe you could attempt to save them. Leave us islamaphobics to our ignorance and go break bread with your small minority of misguided and violent “fundamentalists.” We don’t buy into your crap. They have “hijacked” your “peaceful religion” run off now and save it before it is too late. We will stay here and keep watch just incase you fail in your mission to curb their bloodlust.

Posted by: Ronin

at May 27, 2006 10:50 AM

It's interesting that Mr. Kusanagi claims to be a mathematician, yet he (like so many other critics of JW) indulge in one logical fallacy after another in their attempt to discredit JW's case.

In this case, in addition to the usual "tu quoque" arguments about Christianity and the usual ad hominem attacks, Mr. Kusanagi also dragged out the old "argument from adverse consequences" fallacy: Mr. Spencer can't be allowed to be right, because he would end up "driving moderates into the arms of the fundamentalists." Needless to say, there are such things as uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, whether Mr. Kusanagi likes that or not.

In his last (and probably best) book, "The Demon-Haunted World," Carl Sagan said that learning how to spot and refute phony arguments, such as those based on rhetorical fallacies and logical error, is a vital part of critical thinking. Here is one Internet reference:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Posted by: Steven L.

at May 27, 2006 10:53 AM

matoko kusanagi wrote: "So you see, the citations you have painstakingly excavated apply to the fundamentalists, in spades. but only to the fundamentalists. Not to the pious middle."

So now we're being told that portions of the infallible written holy word of their god allah, which was handed directly to their prophet by allah, and which is forever true and immutable, have to be discarded in their entirety if real muslims want to be pious. Too funny!

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal

at May 27, 2006 10:54 AM

matoko kusanagi said "Robert,i think you have a basic misunderstanding of Islam, and, indeed, all religions."

It is you has the basic misunderstanding of Islam. It is the only one of the group that demands that its followers wage perpetual war on the others, "by every strategem of war," until Judgment Day, with the goal of conquering the globe. So Islam is the only one of the group that defines itself in terms of destroying the others in the group.

matoko kusanagi wrote: "So you see, the citations you have painstakingly excavated apply to the fundamentalists, in spades. but only to the fundamentalists. Not to the pious middle."

In Islam, the Koranic text is immutable, and is dripping with violence directed against the other. Changing the literal meaning of even one word of the Koran is blasphemy punishable by death. Thus, Muslims have a built in feedback loop that drives toward fundamentalism. Since the Koranic text, being the "literal word of God" cannot be changed, this means that becoming more pious means becoming more violent. Your term "pious middle" is therefore nonsensical.

Posted by: Stendec

at May 27, 2006 10:59 AM

Without commenting upon my own training, I would be very dubious about ANYONE who started a mail with "i am a mathematician by training and a sociobiologist by avocation".

I have some experience of tertiary debating and the one thing we find most often is the the mathematical departments (pure, applied, statistical etc) rarely ever produce decent debaters. Take out the numbers and their logic becomes erratic I guess.

However, when he adds that sad unhappy subject sociobiology, which like sociology is a subject in dire need of a real USE in any world , islamic or western, it totally undermines anything else that he could possibly say.

Fortunately when Dar al Islam comes into place there will be no need for such subjects since uniformity of culture will sweep the world into the sterile wilderness that is Islam.

However he must be allowed to continue here as in Dar al Islam he would not be allowed the privilige of disagreeing with a majority audience without the risk of being stoned or simply beaten to death by a mob. Naturally he will not appreciate this, They rarely do.

Posted by: Zathras

at May 27, 2006 11:04 AM

matoko kusanagi's desire to draw an equivalence between Christianity and Islam can actually help to illuminate what is so troubling about Islam.

As mk affirmed, there are fundamentalists in every religion. But what is a religious "fundamentalist"? It is a person who desires to return to the "fundamentals" of his religion. From my observation of and participation in Christian fundamentalism, this involves a looking to the original textual sources of the religion as the reliable guide to faith and practice. I think that there is also a yearning for a return to the simplicity and purity of the early practices of the faith community.

This is where there is a decisive difference between Islam and Christianity. Christianity came into being in the context of oppression by foreign political power, and for the first few centuries the churches existed on the margins (at least within the territory controlled by Rome; I believe they had more freedom in Egypt), despised by the powers of the day as impious (for they did not worship the Roman or Greek pantheons) and often persecuted. And the textual sources of the Christian Church, which are primarily found in the New Testament (the Old Testament is background and prolegomena) do not support a program of violence or seeking of political dominance. To the extent that the Church has done this in the past (and there are wide dismal swaths of history when it did), it was actually acting out of character. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.

Islam, by contrast, came into being in the context of strife and warfare (Muslims are proud of this and regard Mohammed as a great military commander, after the pattern of Moses --- they regard Mohammed as the fulfillment of Moses' words that a prophet like himself would one day arise to call the straying people back to God) and for the first few centuries was engaged in a program of territorial conquest and political domination. And the textual sources of Islam fully support this program.

So the early communities of faith and textual sources that Christian fundamentalists and Islamist fundamentalists look back to are of entirely different characters.

It is true that the church eventually became politically powerful in Europe, and in retrospect that was a calamity. The Christian Church has always been at its best when it is weak. There is even biblical warrant for that, in Paul's boasting about his own weakness. God's grace is sufficient, for His power is perfected in weakness.

So, when Christian fundamentalists look back to the textual sources and early practice of their faith tradition, what they see is suffering servanthood, much like Jesus Himself. When Muslim fundamentalists look back to the textual sources and early practice of their faith tradition, what they see is violent conquest and political domination, much like Mohammed himself.

And since the fundamentalist "return to the roots" motive is present in every religion in every age, Muslims will always be radicalizable and recruitable into military jihad, so long as there are any non-Muslim polities left on earth.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 27, 2006 11:11 AM

"In mathematics you need only one counter-example to disprove a theorem." (MK)

Okay, if you say so. I'm not a mathematician, but I'll take your word for it.

"the school of al-Anzhar,..." (MK)

This would be your ,one counter-example to disprove Mr. Spencer's theorem, yes? Am I following, so far?

Then:

"A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by Al-Azhar as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,”[1]" (RS)

Mr. Spencer shows you your error, using the same source you used to disprove his "theorem".

"you are quoting a single source. unimpressive."
(MK)

As I admitted at first, I'm not a mathematician. On the other hand, I used to think I had a fair handle on common sense, and temporal logic. I don't know whether to take an aspirin, or to laugh. Is this some advanced mathematical logic? Hmmm...

By the way, all written sentences begin by capitalizing the first letter of the first word. If you just do that much, I think people will think you less prone to histrionics. Just a thought.

Posted by: Abscedere

at May 27, 2006 11:13 AM

Another email from Matoko Kusanagi, echoing many of the points he made above, with my responses:

Then where can I find this? i gave the arabic citation.

Yes, but it is not online. It will take me awhile to track it down.

wow, you publish my email to you without even asking?

Yep. Sure did.

again, you demand "proof" that your interpretation is incorrect-- the only way to establish that would be poll data-- what the texts contain, and even what is preached in mosques is an assumption on your part that these are the beliefs held and practiced by the millions of muslims in the pious middle.

I make no such assumption. I only go by what the texts say. You still haven't produced any contrary evidence.

How many xians today believe exactly what is in the bible? how many execute biblical imperatives, like, say, an eye for eye? some do, right? sure, there are fundamentalists in all religions. it is documented phenomena.

Re an eye for an eye, see Matthew 5:38-39. Good luck finding Christians who would exalt the OT command over this.

i say your demands for moderate muslims to stand up and reject selected parts of Islamic teaching (the parts you find offensive) are arrogant, ignorant and unreasonable.

And I find you arrogant, ignorant, and unreasonable. So what? Why can't you produce any actual evidence that I am wrong? And now you seem to be granting what you initially denied: that Islamic teaching includes a mandate for warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers. Yes, I find that offensive.

i will certainly not comment at "jihaadwatch". but you may publish my response.

Thanks. I would publish it anyway, but I see you have changed your mind and already commented at Jihad Watch. Once you started writing about me at Dean's World, this became a public debate. If you want to retract anything you have written to me in emails, I will note it.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 11:26 AM

Abscedere....no offence...but we should judge the words...not the english...i make many mistakes...but speak from my heart...just my own thoughts...again no offence....

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 11:44 AM

Storage Manager:

Abscedere's point is well taken: Matoko Kusanagi originally asserted that one counter example would be sufficient to disprove my points. When I gave him one counter example to disprove his point, he didn't acknowledge it, but rather sneered that I had supplied only one counter example, and that that wasn't enough.

The self-serving inconsistency is obvious.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 11:49 AM

storagemanager,

My apologies, from the heart. I should know better than to criticize any characteristics of language used on a blog, or anywhere else online. It's not polite, and it doesn't solve a doggone thing.

I guess I just got caught up in the debate, and threw just a little too much into it.

I truly enjoy your posts--in particular the ones where you show Biblical references to the current situation of the world.

Forgive me?

Cindy

Posted by: Abscedere

at May 27, 2006 11:58 AM

Damn good read Spencer, I had'nt been over here in a while, I've been hanging out at ummah dot com.

Reading 'matoko kusanagi's' comments I am ammused in the most macabre of ways.

You are right on the mark. By the way I am growing tedious of this expression 'islamaphobic'. Appairently it is a monoker for being aware of ones surroundings, not ignorant.

Something I've noticed reading the tens of thousands of words on these issues written by muslims on ummah dot com is that we have a better idea who they are than they do. Ignorance seems to be the dailly fare over there. There are countless examples of Islamic doctrine being quoted correctly and some muslim totally flipping out that any one could say such outrageous things..... this is to say quoting his own doctrine to him, which he is totally ignorant of.

Keep up the good work nice man, please keep it up (mae west said to the electrician).

Posted by: JEM

at May 27, 2006 12:06 PM

JESUS said my kingdom is not of this world. Great point Dhimmisoftheworldunite.........For this hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to JERUSALEM whice now is,and in BONDAGE with her children....But JERUSALEM whice is above is FREE, whice is the mother of us all....Galatians 4:25-26........YE worship ye know not what:We know what we worship: For salvation is of the JEWS....John 4:22..........GOD is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in TRUTH.......John 4:24....Two books....ONE TRUTH......I have picked mine...It is not the koran.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 12:09 PM

Horrendously OT:

I think it was my response to the old "do you speak, read, write, understand Arabic?" I believe I couldn't resist getting a jab in there at this very educated mathematician's grasp (or lack thereof) English.

My own education ended after high school. I know this type, though--I have to work with them every day. They have some extra paper hanging on their cubicle walls, and I'm the so-called moron.

They can figure. They can calculate, they can tell you to do things that you tell them won't work, then blame you when, lo and behold, their "experiments" didn't work.

They know everything. They can do nothing. And their rendering in speech and writing of their native language is deplorable!

Anyway, I do apologize to everyone, even the obnoxious MK. I got carried away.

Posted by: Abscedere

at May 27, 2006 12:11 PM

matoko

You don't disgust me. On the contrary, I find you hillarious, the best entertainment I've had for a Saturday morning cup of coffee, instead of my regular Betty Boop and Popeye cartoons.
It's not really about the "true nature of Islam" with you, is it? Robert must have touched a raw nerve in you, some kind of intelectual inferiority complex, some kind of frustration that, despite your education, nobody gives a damn about you and your religion, especially the infidels that taught you math and science and that you hate for precisely that reason. How can anyone know more, assert himself, and be right over a Muslum??

That "anyone" is Robert, and you can't stand it. You just hate his guts, don't you.

Coffee's up, and so is the comedy. On to better things.

Posted by: ovidius_naso

at May 27, 2006 12:15 PM

no problem...it just made think of all the mistakes i make...lol

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 12:16 PM

no problem...it just made think of all the mistakes i make...lol.........see!...man oh man...

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 12:26 PM

Gerge_rem,
Bush, Blair and especially Chirac do not represent a majority of population when they speak of Islam as moderate and peaceful religion, not any more. Not at least in 2 countries I spend most of my time.

Robert,
Islam is a religion and as such has a lot in common with other religions. It is allowed some like mk to make a “punch under the belt” stating that all religions are the same. That is why I made several attempts on this site to convince other people not to fight Islam from a position of another religion and not to use any other terms (islamofacism, islamo-nazzism), but just to call it what it is – Islam. My feeling has always been that by doing that we weaken the arguments we present. Too often they are telling us that Moses, Jesus and others, respected in Judaism and Christianity, are also respected in Islam. It seems to give them some sort of legitimacy with many Jews and Christian. To understand the difference is beyond the intellectual capacity of the masses.
It is very commendable that you, admitting your own religious preferences, criticizes Islam for what it actually is and not because it does not meet the standards of your own religion.
What mk wrote is beyond contempt. To call you a moron is laughable. To apply a mathematical principal to a historico-jurisprudent argument is totally incorrect and any mathematician would know that. The guy is not very bright. He does not even understand the difference between a principal of justice and punishment (reference to “an eye for an eye’). He is making the usual mistake by anybody who is not skilful in delivering an argument by doing exactly what he is accusing you of.

Take it easy. I do not know Arabic, but seem to remember a proverb: “Dogs bark, but a caravan is going”.

Posted by: pong

at May 27, 2006 12:26 PM

All rhetoric , hot gas and name calling and still no evidence who’s fisking who ?

Posted by: Snapperhead

at May 27, 2006 12:34 PM

The archaic, or "archaeic," texts to which this self-described "Japenese mathematician" (next time around, use the name "Hironaka" -- it will do much better) consist essentially of three discrete items. The two that count the most are:

1. Qur'an. This "archaeic" text is deemed to be beyond and outside time, uncreated, the immutable Word of God, finally received properly through the agency of Muhamamd, Seal of the Prophets, and his followers, the Believers, to whom the world belongs, for the world cannot conceivably belong to the Infidels.

There are some passages in this text that appear to contradict or clash with each other. In all such cases, the interpretive doctrine of "naskh" or abrogration (where later texts are deemed to supersede earlier ones, just as a later Supreme Court decision can modify or cancel a previous one), and in every case this makes the Qur'an even more disturing, aggressive, violent toward Infidels.

2. Hadith (properly "ahadith" but by convention, in English, "hadith" may be used to designate both singular and plural). These are the stories about the words, deeds, even the silences of Muhammad, that help to form the Sunna, the other base of Islamic thought: Qur'an and Sunna. While some would-be "reformers" (e.g. Mustafa Akyol)think that the Hadith can somehow be jettisoned, and returning to "sola scriptura" (a phrase appropriated deliberately from the history of Christianity, as if to signal that Islam, too, can undergo its "reformation"). Tens or even hundreds of thousands of hadith were made up along the way, and long ago, solemn Muslim scholars sat winnowing them, assigning levels of likely authenticity based on endless studies of isnad-chains, that is A told B told C and so on, with careful attention to A, B, C, and so on, to determine their likely trustworthiness. A lot of time, and mental effort went into this exercise, but it was all so that Muslims would know exactly what was true, what might be true, what might be false, what was false. Six such scholars stand out, and of them two, Al-Bukhari and Muslim, are regarded with special reverence. No doubt, since they worked more than a millennium ago, their product, those Hadith collections, should also be called "archaic" or "archaeic."

But Qu'ran and Hadith are not "archaic" to Believers. They are more real, more alive, more relevant, more full of meaning, than ever -- especially as the modern world presents distrubing complexities that send people running back to the Complete Regulation of Life, the Total Explanation of the Universe.

3. Finally, there are the texts of the jurisdconsults and Qur'anic commentators. And while in the late 19th and early 20th century, before the oil money came along to disguise Muslim failures and Muslim weaknesses, and in fact helped to fund all the instruments of Jihad, this handful of reformers were either silenced by force, or got nowhere. For they kept coming up against that immutable Qur'an, those inalterable muhaddithin.

And that is the problem for Believers.

And it is even more of a problem for the intended victims of the belief-system of Islam --that is, for us, the innocent Infidels.

Posted by: Hugh

at May 27, 2006 12:35 PM

Dear Mr. Matoko Kusanagi,

If, as you claim, "In mathematics you need only one counter-example to disprove a theorem," then your use of the word "xian" to signify Christian is the one counter-example to disprove you a moderate muslim. No Christian should be referred to as an "x", just as no Jew should have had a number tatooed onto their arm in the death camps of the Nazi reich. Clearly this is a salient indicator that you harbor Muslim supremicism in your heart.

Posted by: Irene NYC

at May 27, 2006 12:36 PM

If we believe the BIBLE then we are to make a stand and deny not....Many some in my own family wish I would shut up about the BIBLE....but..STAND FAST therefore in the liberty wherewith CHRIST hath made us FREE, and be not entangled again with the yoke of BONDAGE.Galatians 5:1.......I remind you islam means submit...slavery BONDAGE.....JESUS set me free I intend to stay that way!

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 12:47 PM

Sorry to descend to snarkiness when that seems to be the proper coin of Esmay and his little mathematician friend BUT those who write the first-person singular English pronoun with a little schoolgirl's lowercase "i", who spell "histrionics" with a "y" and who commit the various other atrocities upon the language (the egregious insistence on typing "xians" as if it were a volumes-speaking commentary on the religion instead of on the juvenile mentality of the writer) in evidence in this person's would-be witty writ put themselves beyond serious consideration even before their logic deconstructs itself under the pressure of trying to read their maunderings.

Robert, you have the patience and wit to eviscerate such mental midgets and that's a good thing, but they can also be allowed to eviscerate themselves. What passes for "thinking" on the Left boils down to a congenital willingness to put the blame for the world's misery on one's own culture exclusively while spinning away the madness of others and denouncing anyone who insists on pointing out the unacceptable nonsense in Islam or any other creed that isn't "xian" as a right-wing, prejudiced ideologue. Or whatever.

And at the last, if you prove to them beyond denial (by, say, the example of Hitler's Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini) that there are evil creatures in high places with impeccable Islamic theological credentials and very little in the way of watertight opposition from unassailable Islamic counter-doctrines, they will resort to fingering bad things that we or the Europeans or Israel did in the past as the cause for the murderous intent bearing down on us from the Dar al-Islam today. In other words, we are to blame for daring to have ever done anything to confound or resist or hurt the feelings of the Poor Brown People.

It is all a form of reverse racism and it sets my teeth on edge. A more visible example of bad faith and easy moral superiority that is anything but superior would be hard to find.

Thank you, Mister Kusanagi, for the excellent whetstone of your poor and emotion-driven arguments. Somehow your bad reasoning, bad faith and bad manners remind me of a certain Mister Kobayashi. You may have enjoyed his character in the movie "The Usual Suspects."

Posted by: Cato the Elder

at May 27, 2006 12:47 PM

Robert,

Thanks for putting so much effort in these examples. At first, I didn't think it was worthwhile, but after thinking about it, it is good that people see that the myth of Moderate Islam is something stated without assertion. Unfortunately, it can only really be done through such exchanges.

I do have one suggestion. Please don't reply to these people in an overly emotional manner. You wrote:

But I'm the moron. Sure.

You might try to get a clue about what you're talking about before you start pontificating.

It makes you look angry which is bad PR. And anyway there is more no reason to respond with anger to them than it is to be angry at rattlesnake for being in your path.

Posted by: Pediomelum

at May 27, 2006 12:49 PM

matoko kusanagi, anyone writing the word "Christians" as "xians" is exhibiting the religiously superior belief that is islam. You deride another "great" religion with this spelling, yet somehow you manage to demand respect that you perceive your 'religion' is due. You want respect? Answer Mr. Spencer's questions with facts, and not your mythical whimsy.

(Sorry, Irene NYC, I wrote this before I read your post. Great minds, I guess.)

Posted by: Rick

at May 27, 2006 12:51 PM

Actually, whenever the equivalency game is attempted by these apologists for Islam and they invariably try to argue -- "well look at the laws in Deuteronomy, look at the license for stoning, and the eye-for-an-eye punishments, and the warfare in the Old Testament, etc." -- we can say that the O.T. is OT.

Posted by: Television

at May 27, 2006 1:04 PM

While we're waving around our mathematical credentials, I might add that, though I spend most of my time in a different field nowadays, I did pick up a BA in mathematics in my undergraduate years.

MK should know that if the theorem is defective-- say, Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists-- counterexamples of where it does appear to work as he claims (those "lone voices crying in the wilderness" that Robert mentioned) does not make the theorem any less defective.

One may need to narrow the theorem to stating only the conditions that make it work. But this sort of "reform" would redefine "Islam" beyond recognition, what with repudiating the business of armed jihad, dhimmitude, and so on.

Or, one may go on believing that 2+2=5, for very large values of 2.

Posted by: Shinoliite

at May 27, 2006 1:12 PM

John was informed 2000 years ago that the “time was at hand,” for prophetic observation, and it is far, far, far more urgent today than when it was first announced. If it was at-hand 2000 years ago, it could be described as being at the fingertips today.

I would include the following exhortation to pastors and Christians alike: “if we do not include the spirit of prophecy in our Church efforts, then we are ignoring a major portion of the testimony of Jesus Christ! Bible scholars have calculated that the Bible is approximately 1/3 endued with prophecy.
http://focusonjerusalem.com/thespiritofprophecy.htm

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 1:16 PM

Storage Manager,

As I told you before, long ago, when you were posting here under another name: this is not the time or place for Christian proselytization.

Please stay on-topic.

And thank you.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 1:19 PM

It seems several commenters here assume that the Kusanagi creature is Muslim. Did I miss something? I saw nothing that would indicate that he is anything other than a typical post-Enlightenment liberal relativist and apologist for that which cannot be defended on any but irrational grounds.

Please point out where he reveals himself to be an adherent of the Evil Creed.

If my undertstanding is correct and he's merely an appeaser and apologist, it actually makes it worse, don't you agree? There is a breed of oh-so-reasonable, non-religious, definitely non-Christian ("xian") Westerner who nonetheless gets all weepy and sentimental and insistent that we "respect" Islam as a valid choice in any sphere, moral, political, ethical or otherwise, when it is patent that a "xian" sect of any denomination or description that espoused the same basic tenets as Islam would (and quite properly) be denounced by these same people as a scary, atavisitic, pernicious and fascistic threat to good order and comity. It is one of the features of today's landscape that tacking the word "Islam" on to a creed that is on its face anathema to everything that "Liberals" and "secular humanists" claim to believe instantly buys it a pass and even respect from the same people who would scoff at even mild forms of "xian" irrationality.

Go figure.

Posted by: Cato the Elder

at May 27, 2006 1:19 PM

Here's a little logic exercise - what sect in Islam most closely corresponds to the Quakers?

Maybe starting at one end of the "Xian" spectrum can initiate some compare and contrast examples.

Posted by: Interested Conservative

at May 27, 2006 1:28 PM

Cato:

I don't think Matoko Kusanagi is Muslim. From his pushing Atran etc. it appears that you are correct that he is a typical post-Enlightenment liberal relativist.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 1:29 PM

Pediomelum,

You have somewhat of a point in cautioning against an "overly emotional" argument.

Nevertheless, passion, as long as it is not to excess, often helps in debates and arguments. Of course, it is difficult to know the proper amount for the audience, and is also difficult to calibrate or control. But, imho, Robert Spencer's passion in this discussion added to, rather than detracted from, his arguments.

Cato the Elder,

I agree that this supposed mathematician is more likely to be a "liberal" relativist than a member of the collective ummah. His assertions about islam are more typical of a non-muslim apologist for islam, than of a muslim.

Posted by: del

at May 27, 2006 1:34 PM

Dear Mr. Kusanagi:

The bottom line is that you have not presented a single shred of evidence to refute Mr. Spencer's views. Better to keep quiet and seem a fool, Mr. Kusanagi, than speak and leave no doubt!

Here is more evidence for the correctness of Mr. Spencer's views. When Mr. Spencer cited, The Reliance of the Traveller, you complained that one source does not an argument make. If there were only one source of Sharia law translated into english that states much the same things as the Reliance of the Traveller, you would be correct. However, there are other texts of Sharia law which have been translated into english which state much the same thing as Reliance. I invite you to read Ibn Rushd's (Averroes to Europeans) The Distinguished Jurist's Primer (Volumes 1 and 2). It is available at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1859641385/qid=1148751084/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5275596-7664867?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

In his Chapter X, The Book of Jihad, he states:

10.1.2 Section 2: Identification of the persons to be fought

The jurists agreed, with respect to the people who are to be fought, that they are all of the polytheists (mushrikun), because of the words of the Exalted, "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah", except what is narrated from Malik, who said it is not permitted to commence hostilites against the Ethiopians, nor against the Turks, because of the report from the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be upon him), "Leave the Ethiopeans in peace as long as they leave you alone". Malik was questioned about the authenticity of this tradition. He did not acknowledge it, but said, "People continue to avoid an attack on them." pp. 455-456

I could go on and on but the bottom line is that Ibn Rushd does not say anything much different from The Reliance of the Traveller which I have summarized and quoted from extensively here:

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475

I should point out to you, since you may not know, that Averroes was highly respected in the Islamic world and still is today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes

So far these are the only two major compendiums of Islamic law that I have had a chance to read but it was striking to me how much they concurred. I suggest Mr. Kusanagi that you do some reading: "When the blind lead the blind, then they both shall fall into the ditch."

Posted by: Mentat

at May 27, 2006 1:48 PM

Mr. Kusanagi does not give any evidence that he is Muslim and I think that he early on affirmed that he adheres to no religious creed at all.

Suffer me to appeal for civility in our criticisms of his arguments. Like Mr. Esmay before him, he is seriously mistaken in his understanding of the true character of historical and present Islam. He also seems to have concerns similar to Mr. Esmay's that pointing out disconcerting truths about Islam may have the effect of radicalizing the many Muslims who have not yet been radicalized (the "pious middle", I think he called them). So he appears to be no friend of the Islamists. He also seems to think so highly of his own opinions that he reckons disagreement with them is per se a sign of stupidity. As Robert has repeatedly noted, he does not seem to be concerned to ground his opinions in fact. And he is evidently willing to publicly speak evil of people he has never met and about whom he knows next to nothing (except that they disagree with him on this subject), so he appears to be proud and even self-righteous.

Mr. Kusanagi has used intemperate language and faulty argument and erroneous "facts." It is possible that he is irremediably committed to his present understanding of the nature and threat of Islam. But perhaps he is not. Perhaps he is amenable to instruction. Most of us have changed our opinions about many things over the years, though I suspect that few of us did so under personal attack. This is not to excuse his ad hominems or the rest of his faulty line of argument, but to appeal to not descend to his level. Note the factual errors, note the self-annihilatory character of his discourse, reproach the ad hominems. Do so in a spirit of charity; we reckon ourselves (rightly, I think) to be a lot wiser than he is on this subject, but we also hope that he will eventually join us, don't we? We don't hate his person because of his errors, do we? That seems to me to be an Islamist way of thinking.

Robert's and Hugh's posts have been exemplary. We can learn from their style as well as their knowledge. Let's.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 27, 2006 1:49 PM

Robert, I have only posted under one other name Campingman.I only changed because I was on another p.c. But of course I will do as you say.Was never my intent to offend.sorry.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 1:52 PM

While we're waving our mathematical credentials around, I would like to add life experience to the argument. While it is strictly true in mathematics that one counter-example disproves a theorem, in real life it is also true that many working theorems are not 100% accurate but nevertheless are fruitfully used as they explain/describe the world in a way that is better than anything else available at the time.

With this caveat in mind, I would like to approach the question, "Is Matoko Kusanagi a Muslim?" a bit differently. If one restricts Islam to just a religion it can technically be argued that he probably isn't a Muslim. In the real world, however, perhaps the working theorem should be, is an apologist for radical Islam who distains other major religions while promoting the Ummah something other than a Muslim? (Even if he denies it?) I'd say, no. They are already believers in Islam's all-encompassing nature (legal, military, religious, social, etc.) They just haven't admitted it to themselves yet.

To me, what he believes is much more salient that what he calls himself.

Posted by: Irene NYC

at May 27, 2006 1:57 PM

Here's a little story about the attitude and belief of at least some Muslims, right here in America. It's from the following article:

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/661

The incident took place at the King Fahd mosque in Culver City, California.

"...On the Friday after the [9/11] terrorist attacks, the imam [Tajuddin Shuaib] says, he gave a sermon condemning suicide bombings and was shouted down by some men who leaped to their feet and accused him of 'changing the Quran.'"

A minor, but common counter example which refutes an argument.

And, yes, the Muslims in the picture are eating the entrails of those unfortunate Israeli soldiers they captured and butchered a few years ago.

Posted by: PRCS

at May 27, 2006 1:58 PM

Seems ironic that this petulant sophist would pick as their nickname "Matoko Kusanagi", as the latter is a female character (everyone keeps assuming the poster is male) in the anime and manga "Ghost in the Shell" who also happens to be the leader of a secret counter-terrorist unit.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at May 27, 2006 1:59 PM

"It is one of the features of today's landscape that tacking the word "Islam" on to a creed that is on its face anathema to everything that "Liberals" and "secular humanists" claim to believe instantly buys it a pass and even respect from the same people who would scoff at even mild forms of "xian" irrationality."

Why is this the case?

Posted by: Television

at May 27, 2006 2:00 PM

"Seems ironic that this petulant sophist would pick as their nickname "Matoko Kusanagi", as the latter is a female character (everyone keeps assuming the poster is male) in the anime and manga "Ghost in the Shell" who also happens to be the leader of a secret counter-terrorist unit."

Not necessarily ironic: the poster seems to harbor a position based upon the belief that there are, in fact, dangerous terrorists to be fought against -- a tiny minority of extremists who nevertheless have nothing to do with Islam.

The War of Ideas is not fought on the battlefield of data, but on the map of interpretation of the data.

Posted by: Television

at May 27, 2006 2:04 PM

The bottom line...Islam is the Religion of harm.
If this was not the case, no one would care. The harm is evident, world wide, and bragged about by Islamic spokesman, who threaten even more harm. Debating these agents of Allah is useless.

“Defining the whole of Islam thru selected archaeic texts is profoundly ignorant”. Posted by: matoko kusanagi

I suppose it would be better to define Islam by non-selected archaeic texts. Random selections by lottery. I think I just defined the Quran...

Posted by: duh_swami

at May 27, 2006 2:14 PM

The people like Kusanagi-san who amusingly argue that it is so very bad of people like Robert to point out the serious problems with Islam because it only makes "them" madder (or drives the "moderates" into the camp of their more militant coreligionists) are on the same logical plane as patients who blame their doctors for diagnosing - naming - the illness that is fatally tormenting them. "If you hadn't told me it was skin cancer I could go on believing that my discomfort was just from psoriasis." It's all very understandable but unfortunately the cancer will kill you even if you insist on calling it a rash or ignore it or pretend it's a fun and challenging addition to your personal biological environment.

Sigh.

Posted by: Cato the Elder

at May 27, 2006 2:21 PM

Well, as far as I'm concerned, those who obfuscate the causes of the terrorism, in effect, pop smoke on that interpreted battlefield through the misrepresentation of data, only serve to assist and enable the terrorists. That's why I considered it ironic. When one clouds the issue, makes excuses, and attempts to diminunize the problem, one is in the enemy camp. Fortunately, I'm willing to bet that the poster possesses neither the martial nor the cyber skills of their namesake.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at May 27, 2006 2:28 PM

And yet the most idiotic statement in Sheehan’s new book, Dear President Bush, comes not from Sheehan herself but from Howard Zinn, who writes in the introduction: “A box-cutter can bring down a tower. A poem can build up a movement. A pamphlet can spark a revolution.”

.......the logic of the left or lack of is the same thought process as islam....the end justifies the means....It doesn't matter that husbands lose wife's or wife's lose husbands...As long as the goal is reached.....it is the old adage if adrift in a lifeboat who should you throw out fisrt?....I would hope people of decency would say we live or die as a team.islam or the left"s way of thinking is not new...We used to call it Selfish!

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 2:45 PM

Kusanagi ignorantly invokes mathematics as a tool to defeat Spencer's position.

Mathematical proof requires an established lexicon of definitions, axioms, and theorems that everyone in the field concurs with. Such concurrence does not exist in the debate over such things as (a) there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam, and (b) the reformability of Islam into a belief that can peacefully coexist with non-Islam. It is foolishness to invoke mathematics as Kusanagi has.

A fundamental belief in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is the belief in divine authority behind their respective texts. These texts define the character of their respective divinity, and followers model their behavior on that divinity. The reality of divinity is immaterial to the debate. The belief, and the texts behind the belief are critical to the debate.

Spencer has acknowledged this role of divinity in his past writings, and to my knowledge has not put himself above any view of divinity. He limits himself to challenging Islamic apologists to show his conclusions about Islam incorrect.

However, Kusanagi believes he has superior knowledge of the universe, so by extension claims god-like knowledge. He writes "All religions are the same, an attempt to paper over the hideous truth with religion-membership passing for fake kinship--we are all nasty hobbesian barbarians under the skin, and there is no god and there is no afterlife, so all your silly poseur interpretations of qur'anic texts are useless pompous, tendicious dreck". Without god-like absolute knowledge how can he claim there is no god and no after-life?

Hmmm. Consider the following definition from my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1951);

Megalomania - a disordered mental condition in which the patient has grandiose delusions.

Kusanagi's misapplication of mathematics shows mental disorder, and his claim of absolute knowledge of the universe is clearly a grandiose delusion. The diagnosis is obvious.

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 27, 2006 2:48 PM

Kasanagi:

The reason Islam sprouts out so many killers, cowardly suicide lunatics, and ones so easily offended and unable to take criticism is because it has no substance to its religious (sic)foundation. It is a "religion for losers" and psychological cripples inspired by violent prescriptions from the Koran and an egomanic so- called prophet. The debates always end with Muslims turning their backs and clinging to their plastic religious (cult) principles. When pointed out that the barbarism displayed by certain violent members of their cult is found in the Koran, it doesn't surprise me that muslims like Kasanagi say this is not the case. Kasanagi probably still has some elements of his self-esteem and has not "surrendered" it to his cult. However, many of his fellow muslims have no self-esteem, have dark perceptions of this world and are only concerned with getting to the next. Therefore, mutilation of their fellow humans are a manifestation of their own impotence and actually a display of their sexual expression. Wilhelm Reich so wonderfully pointed this out in his work "the Murder of Christ" during the Nazi and Stalinst reign of tyrannists of World War II.

Please read the article by Ali Sina. This genius explains it a lot better than I can. It also shows Sina converting a muslim with much the same perception as Karsanagi. Enjoy!

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60523.htm

Posted by: Briars

at May 27, 2006 2:52 PM

Anyway, once again -- it is not important what Dean Esmay and Matoko Kusanagi say.

Exactly, people operating at this intellectual level have little of interest to say, and are only worth responding to insofar as they can mislead others.

Look at the ridiculous post by Kusanagi above:

the jihaadiis (sc. jihadists) are fundamentalists, they say this themselves.

"Fundamentalism" is a self-description of a particular movement within Christianity (perhaps a foolish movement but not, note, a violent one). The MSM, misunderstanding the import of the term has extend it to disparate "religious" phenomena and, in the process, changed its meaning. Kusanagi attempts to "fix" the meaning of the term with a quotation from an third-party approved by him, all the while carefully avoiding noticing that it is being used as a catch-all term for disparate phenomena that it is not particularly helpful to bracket together. As for the jihadists, he says they say they are "fundamentalists" - which they don't (not their self-description) - and, of course, fails to establish that because he does not offer - because he cannot - a single quotation from a jihadist that makes that claim. In fact, there's a sleight of hand here and "they say this themselves" turns out to mean that they don't but that Kusanagi has them "say" this on the basis of fiddling with terms and calling in his approved third-party.

What a childish and irrelevant game!

Osman bin Laden did, of course, quote Mohammed: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah."

This is mainstream Islam, as it comes out of the mouth of the prophet. There is, of course, no equivalent in the Christian, Jewish, Taoist or Buddhist scriptures.

Posted by: Yojimbo

at May 27, 2006 3:02 PM

robert, cher, why don't you use your powers for good instead of evil?
like Dr. Al-khouly of the al-Azhar school, or Dr. al-Muttawakkil, you could find qur'anic references to counter jihaadi ideology. ;-)
for example, "there is no compulsion in Islam"?
haha, you are uninterested in that sort of research, aren't you.
Instead you demand muslim moderates do that for you. or they cannot really be moderates.

i tried to explain, OF COURSE the fundamentalists subscribe to rigorous application of the texts. that doesn't mean those texts are remotely relevent to the pious middle.

you cannot escape the smug superiority of xianity. that makes you a very poor scholar.

let me poll--how many here believe in the intrinsic superiority of xianity to islam? (and, no, if i wanted to be insulting i would call you all godbots, not xians. xian is mere shorthand.)

for the otaku among you, remember the Major's (matoko kusanagi is a major in section nine, the security police, in the anime) greatest battle in Innosensu is a fight with semi-sentient robots.
draw your own conclusions.
;-)

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 27, 2006 3:07 PM

"Fundamentalism" is a self-description of a particular movement within Christianity...

sorry, no, i gave the accepted scientific definition used in cognitive neuroscience and cultural anthropology. Most religions have had a fundamentalist component.

how very christo-centric of you to think that fundamentalism only applies to xians. but what else could i expect from this blog.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 27, 2006 3:11 PM

It is a bit grandiose to argue from a phony stance of superior knowledge of the facts, then proceed to be corrected on every level as Robert has proven with his correspondance with these two dogmatic types. I am only convinced by facts, and it is apparent to me, a non-partisan and non-afflicted person that Robert is more convincing.

Although, Christianity might have a "tradition" of non-literal interpretation, in reality a huge chunk of the current U.S. population, 35%, believe in biblical inerrancy, and 46% take a LITERALIST view of creation. This was based on a Gallup poll in 1996. This includes all of the end-of-days drivel and those who think that God speaks to or through them, sending the 3rd Infantry off to do "God's work", or that the Big Bang happend just thousands of years ago.

I am not trying to equate the BEHAVIOR of Jihadists with Christians, but the glossing over of this fact with "well-developed traditions" of non-literalism is not convincing to me either.

Posted by: amana39

at May 27, 2006 3:15 PM

Matoko Kusanagi,

Historically, "fundamentalism" was a movement that developed within Christianity. The word is only applied by analogy to other traditions.

As for your questions:

"why don't you use your powers for good instead of evil?"

When did you stop beating your wife?

"like Dr. Al-khouly of the al-Azhar school, or Dr. al-Muttawakkil, find qur'anic references to counter jihaadi ideology. ;-)
for example, "there is no compulsion in Islam"?
haha, you are uninterested in that sort of research, aren't you."

If you had done any research of your own, you would know that I have discussed that verse in detail, particularly in my book Onward Muslim Soldiers.

"i tried to explain, OF COURSE the fundamentalists subscribe to rigorous application of the texts. that doesn't mean those texts are remotely relevent to the pious middle."

The problem is that the fundamentalists are the mainstream in Islam and that they're recruiting among the pious middle. How do you propose this be stopped?

"you cannot escape the smug superiority of xianity. that makes you a very poor scholar."

You accuse me of smug superiority, yet I have given you evidence to support every assertion I have made. You, meanwhile, have given me no evidence at all. Who is the smug, superior one again?

"let me poll--how many here believe in the intrinsic superiority of xianity to islam? (and, no, if i wanted to be insulting i would call you all godbots, not xians. xian is mere shorthand.)"

This is not a Christian site. My colleagues Hugh Fitzgerald and Ibn Warraq, both Jihad Watch Board members, are atheists.

I expect that disrupts your paradigm.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 3:16 PM

let me poll--how many here believe in the intrinsic superiority of xianity to islam? (and, no, if i wanted to be insulting i would call you all godbots, not xians. xian is mere shorthand.)

Is that like muslim zombies who climb on a bus and blow it to kingdom come?......or kill 16 year children eating lunch leaving a father to grieve for the rest of his life?....or making a jet a missle and changing the lives of millions.Is that a godbot...sorry I was just curious?

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 3:18 PM

I must call for the death of matoko. He uses X in place of Christ. How dare anyone insult the Lord by replacing him with an X? An X is a symbol. The Koran forbids symbols!

I declare Jihad on Matoko. He must die. And everyone who uses an X to denote Christ must die! (including retail stores at Christmas time)

This is an insult to GOD! God has commanded me, through the Koran, to kill all those who insult God! Correct?

Death to the unbelievers! (of Christ)

(If Christians starting acting the way they act, Islam would shut up and sit down. They can dish it out, but there is no way they could ever take their own medicine.)

Posted by: somethingaboutislam

at May 27, 2006 3:30 PM

somethingaboutislam....hang on...I cant find my boxcutter...where the heck is that thing?

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 3:39 PM

Mr. Kusanagi:

I cannot claim to speak for all who post here at JW/DW but I know that I speak for most in that this is what Jihadwatchers believe in:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Particularly:

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Muslims, in general, do not believe in these things for well-founded theological reasons.

Look at the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html

ARTICLE 10:

Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.

ARTICLE 22:

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

1.. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah.

(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.

Mr. Kusanagi: I respectfully suggest that you are an incredibly ignorant person. You should spend at least the next year researching and then come back here to have a chat with us.

Posted by: Mentat

at May 27, 2006 3:40 PM

Robert I suggest that MK is a Muslim,disguising himself as a kaffir, because his argument, "You can't read Arabic" can only come from a Muslim, especially a muslim scholar.. Now a Muslim scholar is one that is skilled at argumentation and dissimulation, there M.O. is to go on the attack, and stay on the attack and he used that tactic on you exhaustively, including ad hominems, moving the goal posts, non sequiturs, changing the subject (making you the subject) and ignoring the question.

He asserted that Al Ahazar was more or less "anti Jihad", you disproved his claim, he ignored that and then continued with his attack.

I have exhaustive experience contending with the lies and obfuscations of Muslims, including their right wing and left wing allies.

Posted by: Nariz

at May 27, 2006 4:19 PM

Our cocksure little friend of the specious logic here sure sounds like another delightful soul that used to post. Went by the name of "Nurgle", who was theorized to be the reincarnation of "Disgusto". Similar smug, imperious attitude usually displayed by the very young who've never been in a real fight and had to physically back up what they say, and similar use of "xian" [due either to lack of manners (bad parenting, my guess), laziness, or sheer stupidity].

-MK,
You may be too much of a chickenshit to actually stand up to those people who would kill you, you'd rather spend your time trying to insult people who you know won't cut your throat to shut you up, but the rest of us recognize the problem.

You've had your fun, boy.
Run along and play now.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at May 27, 2006 4:22 PM

kusanagi,

howzabout you provide concrete evidence of the existence of your "pious middle"?

1) please provide verifiable names of muslim clerics, who preach to their own followers, anything which could be reasonably described as "moderation", by non-muslims.

2) please provide their sermons and khutbas and books, in some verifiable version.

3) please estimate the number of followers any such cleric has.

4) please clearly explain or define your own view of the characteristics or attitudes which determine, or demonstrate, muslim "moderation", as opposed to muslim "fundamentalism".

Do not include any "interfaith" speaking engagements, or any situation where the audience is non-muslim, such as press conferences with western reporters. I will sport you the existence of a handful (assuming they are sincere) of nominally moderate clerics (e.g. Abdul Palazzi -- btw he has apparently fallen out of the news in the past few years ...what gives?)

my personal experience with a university muslim student association, is that your "moderate" and "pious middle" does not exist. Of course, that was only a few hundred students. Please share your own vast real experiences with the words of muslim preachers and clerics. thank you.

p.s. Qaradawi, although he is well-known, is NOT reasonably described as a moderate.

Posted by: del

at May 27, 2006 4:30 PM

Islam continually manifests hostility towards human reason, rationality, and critical discussion without whice democracy and scentific and moral progress are not possible.IBN WARRAQ......Why I am not a muslim.......I can not forget the first song I learned in school just before the Six Day War titled "Arabs Our Beloved and Jews Our Dogs." I used to wonder at that time who the Jews were but with the rest of the kids, I repeated the words without any knowledge of their meaning.......WALID..ANSWERING ISLAM................One could use alot of diffrant reasons for not caring for islam.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 4:30 PM

"Seriously: when I do this to Christian scriptures, people go absolutely ballistic on me. I mean, I'll come right out and say, "Look, here is a totally twisted and out-of-context quote of Christian scriptures, which if taken literally would mean the same thing as the Koran says here" and people blow up and say I'm insulting Christianity. The irony never dawns on them at all."

This Esmay is a phoney-he's a liar. If he were telling the truth he would give specific examples of "a totally twisted and out-of-context quote of Christian scriptures, which if taken literally would mean the same thing as the Koran says here"

All the above from Esmay are invented. He's a waste of time when it comes to truth and courage.

Posted by: Frank

at May 27, 2006 4:31 PM

I'm an agnostic, and I can see that Christianity is superior to Islam. Christianity has proved itself to be flexible and accomodating to change and progress, and generally across a wide variety of types of churches and doctrines tends to inculcate a culture of tolerance and respect for human rights and laws of the land. Where there is tension between Christians and secularism, the incidence of violence as a response to the cognitive dissonance the Christian feels between the convictions of his beliefs and the secular society is extremely minuscule, compared with that among Muslims that is preached, fomented and boiling over into actual riots, killings, lynchings, honor-killings, corporal punishments, terrorist activities and outright jihads all over the globe -- a cognitive dissonance that goes beyond the tension between Islam and secularism to a larger one between Islam as deserving to be supreme, and a surrounding world that continues to resist the supremacy of Islam.

Posted by: Television

at May 27, 2006 4:32 PM

er...different...even.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 4:33 PM

Jihadwatch: Changing one mind at a time.

Posted by: Mentat

at May 27, 2006 4:46 PM

What is it about Islam that even its non-Muslim apologists are inspired to such levels of arrogance and combativeness?

Posted by: hasan salami

at May 27, 2006 4:52 PM

Thank you, Robert, for this brilliant rebuttal. It is only a pity that the facts you state in your repsponse are destined to remain confined to the blogosphere, unless some miracle happens to the MSM.

Posted by: dolphin

at May 27, 2006 4:55 PM

The man of the hour....Logic and islam...water and oil.......Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Europe that it should support his country's nuclear program or "suffer the consequences."

In an interview to be published in the German Der Spiegel on Sunday, Ahmadinejad also expressed his doubt regarding the Holocaust, saying that even if it had occurred, the Jewish state should have been established in Europe, not in Palestine.

"I only accept something as the truth if I am truly convinced of it," he asserted.

(Like one should never make urine in a snakehole)

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 4:59 PM

If there is a hideous lie on this thread it is Kusanagi's bald and chin-dribblingly obtuse assertion that "all religions are the same." I will studiously avoid proselytizing for any particular faith, but to say such a stupid thing is the theological equivalent of one who would say the same about, for instance, beverages. From, say, the fact that they are all more or less liquid to assert that there is no essential difference between grain alcohol and beer or tea and lassi is the height of intellectual abdication. It comes from the stance that the person making the assertion considers himself above the entire field of human philosophical-religious thinking. "I've seen through it all, so any silly claim of superiority, either temporally or spacially, is just nonsense because we are or have been every bit as bad as they are and therefore we have no right to judge or oppose them."

Basically these people have a six-year-old's view of justice, which is that any imperfection on the part of the judge obviates his authority to condemn a transgressor.

How tiresome.

Posted by: Cato the Elder

at May 27, 2006 5:00 PM

I would love to have one of these "all religions are equally intolerant" people dependent upon me for their daily meals. On the first day, I would give them a bowl of soup that had too much salt -- one heaping tea-spoon of salt. On the second day, I would give them a bowl of soup that had too much salt -- an entire cup of salt. When he would complain, I would simply say, "all bowls of soup are equally salty".

Posted by: Television

at May 27, 2006 5:10 PM

lol, mentat, you cannot seriously be proposing that i listen to those corrupt misery brokers at the UN?
you must be mad.

see, even the suggestion that islam and xianity are equivalent at some level has you all frothing. and robert, why drag in Hugh and Warriq to legitimize yourself? i wasn't talking to them, now was i?

Robert, you are takfir.
you are interpreting texts without authority or scholarship.
;-)

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 27, 2006 6:15 PM

Great posts. Robert dresses down another liar.

Only one religion has as its central policy, its ultimate goal, and overriding principle, that all the world must be made to be Islamic and that there is no limit to the amount of force that may be used to achieve this goal (2:193, 8:39, 9:5, 9:29, 9:33, 48:28, 61:9). Don't believe me? Check out resepected tafsirs of each of these verses, starting wit