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: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

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 with Ibn Kathir; check the "sahih" Hadith; check the Sira; check Islamic law; check the statements of the world's most popular Islamic scholars today (e.g., Qaradawi); check popular Islamic websites; check the opinions of most of the Muslim posters at JW; and check polls such as the PEW results on such questions as sharia supremacy and approval of bin Laden/Al-Qaeda. Based on all of this, and other info, I would venture to guess that between about 30-60% of Muslims in the world today accept sharia supremacy (which entails Muslim supremacy) and approve of the killing of non-Muslim civilians in jihad (e.g., suicide attacks, etc., which have the approval of many Islamic scholars). 58% of British Muslims wanted the Danish cartoonists to be punished for blasphemy and 40% want sharia law to be imposed in Britain. My guess is that these figures are higher in Islamic countries (e.g., even in "moderate" Jordan, the majority wants sharia law).

No other religion today (and today, and the future, is what we should be most concerned about, though Islam's history is probably worse than that of all the other ideologies--religious or non-religious) executes apostates, "blasphemers", gays and lesbians, adulterers, and various political dissidents under religious crimes (e.g., war against Allah and the prophet, and mischief/corruption on earth). No other religion today still permits and indeed practices slavery (e.g., see Sudan). No other religion today still officially legitimizes rape (Islam permits Muslim males to rape non-Muslim female captives and slaves, or those women regarded as such by Islamic law).

http://www.islam-watch.org/

http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/KillingInKoran.htm

http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/RebutMuslimRape.htm

http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/RebutApostasy.htm

To suggest that all religions are the same is not only dishonest, unethical, and irresponsible, but it is an act of monumental stupidity.

Posted by: Archimedes

at May 27, 2006 6:17 PM

by the definition, salafists are millenialist fundamentalists, that seek a return to the golden age of Islam. read the definition again.
wahabbism is an extremist subset of salafism.
they don't describe themselves as fundamentalists using that word, but their pronouncements fit the technical description.

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

but the contents of this thread completely verify my arguments and opinions.
robert has no proof that ANY muslims embrace this ideology, because he has no concrete data, on his interpretations of old texts.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 27, 2006 6:27 PM

Not even tnt could open that mind.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 6:31 PM

Archimedes, all religions are culturally stable strategies that evolve competitively and have relative fitness.
the devil is in the details, and how those strategies are implemented, or how they differ.
but the base structure is the same.
and all religions have a liturgy, a religious guild, a pantheon or monotheon, scriptures and texts, etc, etc.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 27, 2006 6:31 PM

Matoko

I have already shown you that the endorsement of violent jihad isn't limited to Wahhabis and Salafis, but is found in all schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

Here it is again, from an earlier email I sent you:

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the most influential institution in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,”[1] makes this clear. This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this 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] The caliph was the successor of Muhammad as the leader of the Muslim community; the caliphate was abolished by the secular Turkish government in 1924. But the manual also states that in the absence of a caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.[4]

A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”[5]

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”[6]

The great medieval theorist of what is now known as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”[7]

[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] 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), o9.0.
[3] Ibid., o9.8.
[4] ‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.6.
[5] Al-Hidayah, vol. Ii. P. 140, in Thomas P. Hughes, “Jihad,” in A Dictionary of Islam, W.H. Allen, 1895. Pp. 243-248.
[6] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, translated by Franz Rosenthal; edited and abridged by N. J. Dawood, Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 183.
[7] Ibn Taymiyya, “Jihad,” in Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996. P. 49.

Why do you ignore this material and then pretend that I haven't shown it to you already?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 6:33 PM

Oh, and Matoko-chan, the proof that many, many, many Muslims accept all this material is found daily in the news headlines: bombings, beheadings, kidnappings, general mayhem -- all in the name of Allah. Search the archives here, and see for yourself.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 6:35 PM

the ayatollah noted Afghanistan was kept underdeveloped because of interference of alien forces in the last decades, but the Afghans with their strong culture, brilliant talent and perseverance can make progress, if the American and the Europeans do not interfere in Afghanistan.

Ayatollah Khamenei also said consolidation of ties between three Persian language countries of Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan would be beneficial to the three countries and called for more effort in this concern.

President Karzai appreciated Iran's help and said Afghanistan will never forget their Iranian brothers' aids and we are proud to have a friend like Iran.

The visiting president said historical and cultural commonalities, proper knowledge of Iranians about Afghanistan problems and the wish of Afghans for expansion of ties with Iran are among the factors which make bilateral relations strong.

He concluded, "We see our future in cooperation with Iran and we want the best ties and relations with you."

(THIS BOTHERS ME)..WHILE OUR TROOPS FIGHT FOR HIS COUNTRY-HE HAS TEA WITH A DEMON!

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 6:49 PM

Great stuff today. This qualifies as theatre.

Robert,

your sense of proportion in response to insult and ad hominem is nothing short of inspirational.

Kusanagi,

what's the frequency Kenneth?

Posted by: Cornelius

at May 27, 2006 6:49 PM

Matoko,

I don't agree that Islam is culturally stable. One source of instability its polygyny (which leads to a sitauation where many young men do not have mates). Other sources of instability in Islam include policies that escalate a non-violent situation into a violent one (the jihad policy against non-Muslim countries that restrict the practice of Islam is one example of this; but the punishments for apostasy, blasphemy, etc., also contribute to instability). Another source of instability is its reliance, into perpetuity, on non-Muslims for providing a source of revenue (dhimmitude and variations of it). To be stable, the Muslims in power have to reject these doctrines, but they won't--at least, I don't see this happening in the near future, and I don't see moderate Muslims getting into those positions of power.

And as I said, Islam is the only religion that has as its most important principle the goal of conquering of the entire world, by force if necessary (and that this must be carried out by followers until the Last Day--i.e., into perpetuity). The Koran assigns the believers the task of wiping out mischief/corruption (a broad category that includes disbelief, polytheism, as well as other sin-crimes) in the world (2:251) and authorizes the use of force to deliver 'Allah's' punishment on the disbelievers (22:39-40; 57:25; 9:14; 8:17; 47:4, etc). No other religion has that feature.

Posted by: Archimedes

at May 27, 2006 7:02 PM

So while americans are thousands of miles away from home-fighting for his country...Karzai is having tea with mahmoud and the supreme demon...Are they talking about how to wipe Israel off the face of the earth....or perhaps chanting death to AMERICA. ........doesn't anyone find this story odd?......the man who has called for the death of our country is now having tea with karzi......Yes I know...someone will say President Bush sent him....why?....talk doesnt work with iran.....no...islam knows no borders.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 27, 2006 7:19 PM

This fellow MK* sounds about 17, drenched in comic books [apotheosized as "graphic novels"] and too much googling, secure in an internal madrassa. (*MK-Ultra, perhaps?)

The Koran preaches hate, vendetta, immorality and and endless push for a global theocratic tyranny. (With a sugar-coating of "compassion" spooned over its bitterness to deceive to naive.)

Mohammad was a pedophile warlord.

Those who follow such a corrupting example, whether "piously" in the "middle", or at any other oblique angle, are doomed to uphold the depredations of their "prophet": slavery, the half-worth of women, contempt for all other faiths, and endless lies ("War is deceit") about their true intentions.

I don't judge by intentions but actions.

Islamic Imperialism's actions threaten all free thought.

Its dogmatism is mind-crushing.

Not a particularly attractive aspect of a "faith".

As an agnostic, who bows to nothing but an overhanging branch, and who finds inspiration in the Tao and Mumonkan, MK's presumptuous assumptions about anyone's relgious or spiritual bent here at JW/DW demonstrates the common condescension of those paralyzed by their own paradigm, whether they call it a "religion" or not.

(And his metaphors are as cheesy as a mousetrap.)

Maybe "nyah-nyah-nyah" is next?

*~@):~{>

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 27, 2006 7:20 PM

Robert Spencer,

I make the following observation:
Esmay claimed that you think "Islam is a dangerous, violent religion". You responded that "nor have I ever said flatly that "Islam is a dangerous, violent religion." That would be simplistic and in many ways misleading." This is from your May 17, 2006 post on JW entitled "Esmay's dismay, and his response".

In that thread I posted two comments. The first comment asked you a question, "how much longer must this [the debate over the nature of Islam and its reformability] go on before YOU are convinced, how much more evidence is needed, how many more must be enslaved or killed, etc, before you realize that there comes a time for judgment to be made, make it, and state it without apology to anyone?" You never answered. My second comment in that thread stated specific rationale for making judgment NOW, not later.

I now make another observation":
In this post, "On assertions without evidence", dated May 27, 2006, you state
"Accordingly, Ibn Warraq is correct when he says that there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.", and then you make a point of repeating this statement. This constitutes passing judgment on Islam, and I agree with both you and Ibn Warraq.

So, if saying "Islam is a dangerous, violent religion" is "simplistic and in many ways misleading", what is it about Islam that makes it not moderate? Have you changed your mind to now say that Islam is a violent and deceptive threat to our freedom? That is my position, one for which I make no apology, and need nobody's approval for. I am looking for you to clarify your judgment. Thanks.

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 27, 2006 7:47 PM

Neverpayretail:

I have been saying that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam for years. This is no change.

To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things. There are many practices it encourages that have nothing to do with violence, ranging from the use of the miswak to many practices involved in tasawwuf.

However, it is likewise true that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach violent jihad, which means that there is no "moderate Islam" as most people understand the term.

But since violent jihad is not the focus of a great deal of Islamic practice, I do not like to characterize Islam as such as a dangerous, violent religion. For one thing, the focus of Islam is not violence as such, but the establishment of the Islamic social order. When it is established, the violence largely ceases, although it is not a social order that accords with Western human rights norms. And the fact that violence is not an end, but a means, within Islam does not mean that violent jihad is not there, or that there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence with unbelievers.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 7:58 PM

Hi neverpayretail,

If I remember rightly, Robert's somewhat equivocal-sounding response to Esmay's charge was in the context of painting all Muslims as violent radicals, which Robert does not do. And that is the point of his affirmation of the (present) moderation of many Muslims and the immoderation of Islam itself. Islam is dangerous because in its pristine original form, it was and is violent and dangerous. But that is not what Islam is everywhere and in every heart today though it could become that in any heart, and it does seem to be trending in that direction in Muslim-majority nations that are not already thoroughly radicalized. One can affirm this without being an apologist for Islam.

That how I interpret it, and I don't see a problem here.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 27, 2006 8:05 PM

a quick read through of kusanagi's blog archives resulted in:

kusanagi is a "grrrl", a "cauc", a michigander, and a republican supporter of President Bush' "war on terror".

She also seems to be fascinated with a soapy, romanticized, comic-book version of islam that she reads in cutting edge anime. hmm. the words "go figure" come to mind again.

So, in several ways she is quite similiar to Dean Esmay: a self professed "hawk" in the "war on terror", who is fascinated by and attracted to islam, but seems impervious to knowledge about real historical or real present-day islam. And: whose lack of knowledge in no way affects her ability to form and assert opinions.

interesting.

Posted by: del

at May 27, 2006 8:08 PM

Islam may be many things, but so was Nazism. Nazism wasn't just about killing Jews and conquering the world. It was also about socialism, correcting economic inequities, building infrastructure, taming inflation, combating crime, the Volkswagen Beetle, exercise and public health awareness, etc. All of those things good. And the autobahn. Got to love the autobahn. Had the Nazis not started a world war they couldn't win, they'd still be in power today.

Does this mean that is would be fair to say that "Nazism is not necessarily a violent, dangerous religion because Nazism is many things"?

I can't speak for you, Robert, but I am willing to say that islam IS a violet, dangerous religion no matter how many "Things" it is. The Beetle notwithstanding.

The only difference between Nazism and islam is that islam has a cover - the status as religion. And in our PC west, that gives it carte blanche to continue without coming under direct government, media, or general social attack.

If only the Nazis had it so good.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam

at May 27, 2006 8:39 PM

Robert:

I admire and applaud your patience and dignified response to those who do not merit it.

Posted by: Won

at May 27, 2006 9:13 PM

I think the point the Neverpayretail is making is that when do you stop debating and when do you start "doing" something about a religion (or a cult such as the Nazis) whose overall purpose is to subjugate or annihilate the non believers of its dogma? Do I have to be a scholar of the Koran or Islamic law to realize where these monsters are coming from? A little reading of the Koran (that's all I can take), the speeches of its leaders and the actions of its zombies of death convinces me that something must be done. That's why I again implore the readers of JW to read Ali Sina's article "Defeating Islam." Is that not where we are at?

Posted by: Briars

at May 27, 2006 9:16 PM

In all my travels through Islamic countries I have never met a 'moderate muslim'.

To hope against hope that they exist is an invention by western optimists, who, like Jackass 'Chamberlain' Straw of England, see the 'alternative as too horrible to contemplate'....

Not even 'moderate' muslims want to be called 'moderate', they claim it means something like 'lesser' or not 'fully' muslim.

I have never met a Mohammedan who didn't hate and despise Jews as the 'root-cause of all evil' and told me that 'Hitler was good because he killed the Jews'...

The mental flyweight above posting with a Japonaise name may claim he is not a Mohammedan, but the idiocy and the logical incomprehension combined with the inbred Islamic supremacy- complex in his writing gives him away.

Recently, Hugh posted about Dr. A. Carlebach, who, very much like Winston Churchill, summed it up in his excellent essay:

"Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam. Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression. The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword. The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world...their reactions -- to anything -- have nothing to do with good sense. They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat. You can talk 'business' with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah...This is what every grain in this country shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them -- even the Crusaders -- left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the flies have died.

I repeat that for good measure:

" on the path of Islam, even the flies have died.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at May 27, 2006 9:16 PM

Sorry, here is Sina's article:

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

Posted by: Briars

at May 27, 2006 9:20 PM

Robert Spencer,

Thanks for responding. Miswak appears to relate to dental hygiene (source=Wikipedia). Do you really think this rises to a level that precludes labeling Islam violent and dangerous? The Nazis brushed their teeth, too. Is that to prevent us from judging Nazism as violent and dangerous, and so rejecting Nazism?

Much of Islam is about the use of violence to maintain Islamic social order. If the violence largely ceases, it is out of fear of violence, a condition not much removed from violence itself, if at all removed. Do you disagree?

You seem to separate the violence in Islam from establishment of Islam. I cannot do this. You must agree that much of Islam is the establishment of the Islamic social order using both violence and deceit. Also, from what I can tell, Islam recognizes people are not drawn to it, and so establishes means to forcibly coerce people into it. Is not such coercion dangerous to our freedom, and a denial of freedom to those already ensnared in its grip by parentage and geography? It seems to me a very small step to go from "all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach violent jihad, which means that there is no "moderate Islam" ", to Islam is violent and dangerous. Not having taken that small step, do you advocate rejection of Islam, as I do? Even if there is some peaceful sect, the seeds for its mutation into anti-Western violence are there in the texts.

I advocate that our freedom is far more important than the possibility of offending some small peaceful sect of Islam. There are still Nazis around, but we reject Nazism and do not worry about offending them.

Hi Dhimmisoftheworldunite, see above.

Briars, yes, I want to get past equivocation and on to rejection of the damn thing. I will check the link. Thanks.

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 27, 2006 9:48 PM

neverpayretail-

The Islam that is not violent is the Islam that has not read its playbook.

As more within the confines of cultural Islam become literate, that will be 'corrected'.

Anyone who follows the playbook of an admitted pedophile warlord is lost to my mind.

And whatever else they do, they are tainted by that tenet to the core. Or, in Nietzsche's phrase, they have "poisoned the wellsprings of being".

Anyone can wake from such a dogmatic delusion.

That's my only hope.

But the bloodshed and tremors or war that will be needed to shake them awake shall scourge the Earth for decades.

Islam, in toto, may not be a "violent, dangerous religion", yet, but that is its theocratic, earthly aim.

The Koran told me so.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 27, 2006 10:27 PM

Briars,

I visited the Ali Sina link at faithfreedom.org. I can agree that Islam is based on deceit and will fall upon exposure. However, I am unable to reconcile the rest of his assertions with the data presented here

http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/

which also has a link to here

http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

but this is not a forum for discussion about this. So, I will leave it there.

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 27, 2006 10:29 PM

matoko kusanagi, l actually feel sorry for you. to be a so called "man of math" you need to be logical and correct. when you read the koran, and you see how those who read it too much as someone stated previously become terrorists, you cannot logically call Islam a religion of peace. that should drive the most honest man of math insane! how do you live with yourself knowing your so called relgion of peace accounts for most of the wars and killings. there is always some imman trying to presuade us non muslims that your cult is peaceful, l do not see Jewish Rabbis or Hindu Priest going out and having little get togethers and try to explain their religion is peaceful. you have to shake you head, and if your are truly honest with yourself, run as fast as you can away from Islam, as no man of math can live with such a lie!

Posted by: Lulu

at May 27, 2006 11:00 PM

neverpayretail-

Remember, all faiths allow you to choose them, or leave them, as your spirit moves.

Except Islam.

Any "religion" that has to threaten you into its fold is an incarceration, not a liberation.

Islam. It's mission: "Submission".

All real faiths seek ultimate enlightenment.

Not a permanent headlock under the "shadow of swords".

Ali Sina is a heartfelt seeker.

Islam closes that chance.

Whether Christ, or Krishna, or Kwan Yin, or Apollo have "divinity" depends on the moment of your birth.

In 200 B.C., you couldn't have been a Christian.

Then what?

Is the endless and glorious Creation not glorious, still?

If you were born in 100,000 B.C., what faith would you have had?

The night stars shaped like an aurochs, and the pulse in both our veins and theirs, hinting at a profound and miraculous wisdom in Life itself, even before names and words could be spoken?

In Islam, you cannot even question.

And humanity is nothing but.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 27, 2006 11:07 PM

Hoo boy.

Kusanagi sez: "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.)"

A more succinct display of disingenuous Selbstverliebheit and transparent bias (not to mention execrable orthography and grammar sadly revelatory of poor thinking skills) would be hard to invent.

A person who claims that there's nothing intentionally pejorative in "xian," but instead it's a mere shorthand (a confession of terminal laziness, in my book, or perhaps there is an underlying disability that makes typing a chore, something for which one could muster sympathy) is immediately given the lie by her studied insistence on writing "Qur'anic" -- with a capital "Q" and the fussy apostrophe, no less! If "xianity" is a mere convenience then one imagines "koranic" would do, but no, the "shift" key sees use where it is neglected even for the first-person singular pronoun. I can only conclude that Kusanagi respects the Muslim holy book more than her esteemed self.

How telling.

Posted by: Cato the Elder

at May 27, 2006 11:09 PM

I too along with retail above wonder about Robert's gingerly approach to condemning Islam.

And I would agree with somethingaboutislam's assessment:

Robert says Islam engages in a variety of activities, some of which are not violent and (presumably) also not bad.

"Islam is many things. There are many practices it encourages that have nothing to do with violence, ranging from the use of the miswak to many practices involved in tasawwuf."

The German Nazi regime also had this variety. If Robert would use the same gingerly locution to describe German Nazism that he uses to describe Islam, I would be intellectually assuaged to see the logical consistency, though uneasy for other reasons. Does the goodness of the Volkswagen (etc.) render our condemnation of German Nazism unwarranted, because that would be "simplistic and misleading", because German Nazism "was many things"? What difference is there between German Nazism and Islam in terms of their condemnable natures?

Posted by: Television

at May 27, 2006 11:27 PM

profitsbeard,

Thanks for the reminder. Also, you wrote

"In 200 B.C., you couldn't have been a Christian. Then what?"

No disrespect intended, but I do not accept responsibility for even trying to solve that. My pee-brain humanity is just not sufficiently aware of the universe to solve it with any certainty. I am content to not know everything.

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 27, 2006 11:36 PM

"somethingaboutislam" makes a telling point about Nazism also being about "many things," including plenty of 'good' things in that mix.

I would go even further and assert that most Nazis were filled with love, but only for their own kind; Das Deutsches Volk, the German speaking realm, the (preferably) blond Aryan ideal, and the gloriously expanding German State which would conquer the world (Und Morgan Die Ganze Welt).

The hatred came for what existed and opposed from without, opposing by their very existance (say, Poles) or by insidious conspiracy (the Jews) to destroy the German people and their noble qualities/aspirations.

Nazi propaganda also stressed the victimhood of the German people, not just by the injustices of Versailles but in most every way imaginable. So aggressive paranoia was cultivated to help advance the cause.

Is the Islamic mindset and mission so very different?

Muslims are filled with charity and love for fellow Muslims, but ONLY for fellow Muslims. The world is divided into distinct and opposing realms: the Land of Peace, the Dar al-Islam, where Islamic Sharia justice and harmony reigns, and the Land of War, Dar al-Harb, where the filthy Unbelievers dwell, hatching evil plots against pure and noble Islam.

As with Nazism the ultimate goal of Islam is one of conquest and supremacy; To win the world for Allah means to ultimately kill off or subjugate all Unbelievers until Islam reigns supreme in all lands. The existance of non-belief (meaning non-belief in Allah) anywhere in the world is a grave affront/threat and must be eventually liquidated.

And of course Muslims are always the victims. As within Nazism an aggressive paranoia is cultivated within Islam to exploit this aggrieved victimhood and justify any crime which appears to protect or benefit Islam. What benefits Islam is good, what exists outside of it (in all likelihood plotting against it) is evil.

No the analogies between Nazism and Islam aren't perfect, but there are plenty enough to give serious pause and cause for sober consideration. If anything, the threat of world calamity is even greater from Islam than what Nazism wrought. This potential threat is a near certainty if zealous Islamic regimes like Iran are allowed to develop and/or possess nuclear weapons, for they will certainly, eagerly employ them for maximum destruction.

Posted by: alexon

at May 27, 2006 11:44 PM

Who dipped their miswak into my tasawwuf?!

Posted by: hasan salami

at May 27, 2006 11:49 PM

battling emails--you should all be privy to mails.
me: and the other schools have at least individual scholars that dispute those points.

robert: Name them, please. Give me their works, please, and show me the extent of their influence.

me: (did so, al-Muttawakkil and al-Khouly, for two.)
but--not my bag-- you're the wanna-be islamic scholar, not me.

this discussion is fin.
you cannot convince me that your cited refeferences represent the whole of islam without hard data, ie sentiment polls.
trying to interpret islamic doctrine from a handful of texts is exactly like the blind man feeling the elephants tail.

here is some real world for you.
i cannot prove to you that the jihaadii texts you cite are irrelevent to the pious middle, and you cannot prove to me that they represent the truth of islam.
perhaps there IS a broad movement within islam for reform--you cannot prove there is not.

i look forward to your eventual appearance on al-Jazeerha.
peace out.
;-)

game over--was it habinar for you?
lolol!

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 28, 2006 1:24 AM

Kusanagi, parting-shotwise: "trying to interpret islamic doctrine from a handful of texts is exactly like the blind man feeling the elephants [sic] tail."

Hmm. The quintessential text-based religion (and one with a rather limited set of basic texts, at that) can't be "interpreted" (I presume you mean understood) from its core texts.

That what you're saying?

What a concept.

Might come as a surprise to your average mullah, that...

Posted by: Cato the Elder

at May 28, 2006 1:34 AM

One more observation and then I am off to bed.

In his response above Robert writes

"But since violent jihad is not the focus of a great deal of Islamic practice, I do not like to characterize Islam as such as a dangerous, violent religion."

In a post entitled "Recommendations for Muslim reformers" dated May 20, 2006 Hugh Fitzgerald of JW writes

One has a right to make decisions about Islam based on this evidence [for the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam], as opposed to basing them on the soothing words and assurances of some nice Muslim friends or colleagues.

It seems to me that Robert's "gingerly approach" is very, very close to making a decision about Islam based on soothing words and assurances of nice Muslims, if not downright equivalent. I wonder if those two guys have debates over this in JW board meetings.

Oh, and I give up. What is tasawwuf? Is that like, Islamic hair jell?

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 28, 2006 1:59 AM

more hilarity from kusanagi.

the al-Khouly she implies is a moderate (several posts above) from al-Azhar is the troglodyte who discussed islam with Wafa Sultan a month or two ago, in that well known interview on al-Jazeera.

hmm.

Posted by: del

at May 28, 2006 2:27 AM

Cato, were we talking about the qur'an?
robert doesn't quote the qur'an much, because there are counterpoints to all his points.

has anyone considered how ironic the title of this post is?
i charge robert spencer with making assertions without evidence.

another email frag
> Muhammad and Fatima are susceptible to jihadist recruitment
> who says? you?

You have no idea what is going on in the world, do you? Have you ever heard of the Lackawanna 6? Look them up. Maher Hawash? Look him up.

sooooooo.....i'm supposed to take your word for it that moderate muslims are at risk of being turned into suicide bombers by the texts you cite?
do you hear how crazy that sounds?
but i'm game , back it up with "evidence".

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 28, 2006 2:30 AM

lolol! del, sorry, that wasn't an interview--it was a discussion. but--oops! MEMRI conveniently left most of Dr. Al-Khouly's speaking parts out of their translation to make it look like Wafa won the debate.

now, really, i'm done.
this site kills brain cells.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 28, 2006 2:37 AM

I would say that Ms. Kusanagi's Parthian shot fell short.

It's a shame that she wouldn't concede the obvious, if only out of a sense of intellectual good faith.

She's probably as nervous as anyone of us about jihadist islam. And instead of finding out for herself what is the exact nature of islam, she has chosen to run with the politically correct herd.

If you're apt to run with the herd, don't be surprised one day if you find yourself over a cliff.

I thought it interesting too, that nobody cared to remind Ms. Kusanagi what the Chief of AL AZHAR recently pronounced. He pronounced that what we deem female, genital mutillation, was consistent with the tenets of the Shariaa. And he didn't make this judgement a hundred years ago, nor seven hundred years ago. NO, HE REACHED THAT DECISION months ago. That's the kind of edict that should give pause to any rational person. And it should certainly give pause to a woman. Don't you think so, Ms. Kusanagi?

I'm sure that Spencer can provide you with the link and the details of that recent statement on behalf of Al Azhar.

Posted by: Dan

at May 28, 2006 3:33 AM

On this site,

http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/aljazeera_trans.php

there is a pdf link to the supposedly "complete" transcript of the Khouly-Sultan discussion. Every time I try to open the pdf file, it fails. Would someone else please give it a try? Thanks.

Posted by: Television

at May 28, 2006 3:41 AM

"nobody cared to remind Ms. Kusanagi what the Chief of AL AZHAR recently pronounced."

Careful, Dan, or she'll LOL you for calling him a "Chief" and then use that insignificant slip to distract from her blithe avoidance of the more substantive, and damning, point of your post. She should worry about her brain cells at this site, as she had so few to begin with.

Posted by: Television

at May 28, 2006 3:46 AM

To our dear Kusanagi-san, I would like to freely own up to being an Islamophobe, just to get that out of the way.

My Islamophobia, however, if you'll allow me the privilege of defining it for myself, is not the bigoted "hatred of Islam" or, worse, of Muslims, that you and so many other excoriators of Islamophobia would impute.

It is, quite simply a (legitimate, if one is permitted to believe the words and deeds of the Islamofacists themselves) fear of Islam, based on what Islam apparently has in store for me.

I fear various other things as well, but so far Scientology, Opus Dei, standard Catholicism and those horrid "Xian Fundamentalists" have not only left me alone in actuality but also in their platforms and charters.

I do know people who died in 9/11, and as I spend a significant amount of time in Jerusalem I consider myself to be not merely a theoretical but a credible target in real life.

So yes, I'm an Islamophobe.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, will be to show me why I'm being paranoid and help me sleep at night.

Give it your best shot, hon.

Posted by: Cato the Elder

at May 28, 2006 4:03 AM

Her first comment really gave the whole game away: "In mathematics you need only one counter-example to disprove a theorem."

Somebody should have informed her early on, that we're not discussing mathematics, we're not in the rarified air of quantum mechanics, nor the theories of astrophysics. We're discussing a thing of fire and spirit, blood and flesh, judgement and damnation. For her to suggest that she could provide a single piece of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, and that should suffice, for a discussion of the merits or demerits of islam, is simply staggering. Absolutely staggering.

Here's how she wants the argument to proceed. Spencer writes a general statement, she provides a single, anecdotal item suggesting the contrary, and voila, game, set and match to her, Ms. Kusanagi.

I must confess to being disappointed by her performance, I was expecting more from her. I thought that she might give Spencer something of a run for his money. But she wasn't even close.

And she made an incredible concession, which most of you overlooked, or at least left unremarked upon.

She CONCEDED, whether she intended to or not, that she couldn't pursue Spencer's argument, BECAUSE TO DO SO ENTAILED dire consequences, because to do so was simply intolerable. And why was it so unacceptable to her, because it violated prevailing political fashions, because it ran counter to political correctness.

And so she as much admitted that her beleif in the reality of the "moderate" muslim is as much a faith-based initiative as it is anything. Strange that a young woman who begins the discussion by laying out and presenting her cold, reasoning skills, her penchant for atheism, her disdain for anything not empirically based, should at the end of the day, concede that her beliefs are as much a matter of faith, of wishful thinking, as they are a product of a cold-eyed assessment of the facts at hand.

And then, after that concession, she demands from Spencer polls and statistics. Spencer isn't the one who needs polls and statistics to back up his beliefs, because his beliefs about islam are not of a FAITH-BASED variety, her's are.

SHE'S THE ONE saying there is a moderate islam.

Well then Ms. Kusanagi:

1} SHOW us the debate going on inside islam about the legitimacy of suicide bombers, about razzia/terror, and about the legitimacy of ongoing jihadist operations;

2} SHOW us the schools of thought, with historic pedigrees behind them, which have condemned terrorist operations against muslims, and non-muslims as well; and

3} SHOW us the polls of ordinary muslims, those you deemed the "pious middle," who condemn the 9/11 terror attacks.

That brief list of requests isn't comprehensive of course. But the answers to those questions can certainly reveal the contours of the islamic landscape, and provide a point of departure for any discussion on the reality of "moderate" islam.

And lastly, Ms. Kusanagi never even mentioned the problem of whether this moderate islam that she takes as a given, due to her politically correct, faith-based initiative, EVEN IF IT EXISTS, is strong enough, powerful enough, for the United States and the West to predicate policy upon. She never got around to that.

AND THAT'S NOT unimportant to the discussion.

Posted by: Dan

at May 28, 2006 4:19 AM

The islamic poser using a japanese moniker gives himself away as a common troll and mental toss-tycoon:

He/she has been given tons of evidence, accepts none and wants more without being able to refute any of it. "This discussion is 'fin', "
he/she sez, which doesn't stop the nuisance poster to spout more of nothing...

Nothing + nothing =? Exactly nothing!

Islam is what it does. We have your number. Many trolls came and went, some keep annoying, but never succeed in refuting the 'immutable' texts and tenets of the 'RoP, which seeks world-domination, genocide, subjugation and dimmitude for 'infidels.

Internment and deportations NOW!

Stop the spread of Islam & Muhammedan infil-traitors NOW!

Shut down mosques & madrassahs in the west NOW!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at May 28, 2006 4:31 AM

Neverpayretail:

I stand by my statements.

It also may interest you to know that Hugh Fitzgerald and I don't have a substantive disagreement on this point.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 28, 2006 5:26 AM

Matoko Kusanagi:

You quote me: "Name them, please. Give me their works, please, and show me the extent of their influence." Then you respond: "(did so, al-Muttawakkil and al-Khouly, for two.)."

You ignored the second part of my request, which is the most important.

You say: "this discussion is fin.
you cannot convince me that your cited refeferences represent the whole of islam without hard data, ie sentiment polls."

The hard data is in front of your face: the elections in the PA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Algeria, etc. etc. etc. Again and again they vote for political Islam, for Sharia.

You say: "trying to interpret islamic doctrine from a handful of texts is exactly like the blind man feeling the elephants tail."

I gave you examples. You gave me zero. I have written 5 books about this, in which I explain how Muslims have traditionally interpreted the Qur'an and Sunnah. I could paste all this in here, in order to show you that I am not "trying to interpret islamic doctrine from a handful of texts," but I doubt any evidence I could show you would convince you of anything.

You say: "here is some real world for you.
i cannot prove to you that the jihaadii texts you cite are irrelevent to the pious middle, and you cannot prove to me that they represent the truth of islam.
perhaps there IS a broad movement within islam for reform--you cannot prove there is not."

Nonsense. If there were such a broad movement, it would at least do us the kindness of being visible.

You say: "Cato, were we talking about the qur'an?
robert doesn't quote the qur'an much, because there are counterpoints to all his points."

This is false. Why don't you search for "Qur'an" here and at Dhimmi Watch and see how much I quote it. In my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers" I explain why jihadists discount those counterpoints and exalt the most violent verses as normative -- and how they do so in accord with traditional Islamic theology. I am not asking you to read the books, but here again you are making false assumptions about my work -- assumptions that are readily proven false by anyone of good will.

You say: "has anyone considered how ironic the title of this post is?
i charge robert spencer with making assertions without evidence."

Have you not considered that I have given you the teachings of Islamic schools of fiqh, and more, and you have given me nothing, and then you have the Austerian chutzpah to make this charge?

You quote me saying this: "You have no idea what is going on in the world, do you? Have you ever heard of the Lackawanna 6? Look them up. Maher Hawash? Look him up." Then you respond: "sooooooo.....i'm supposed to take your word for it that moderate muslims are at risk of being turned into suicide bombers by the texts you cite?
do you hear how crazy that sounds? but i'm game , back it up with 'evidence'."

Oh dear. The Lackawanna 6 and Maher Hawash aren't "texts." They're people. They're evidence of ordinary moderate Muslim types becoming jihadists -- being convinced to do so by Qur'anic arguments. In other words, they are the evidence you demand -- and there is plenty more where they came from.

But I suspect you are impervious.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 28, 2006 5:37 AM

kusanagi,

How is the troglodytic al-Khouly a "moderate", as you imply above? My point was to point out who al-Khouly is. A troglodyte.

And the "al-Muttawakkil" you mention above as another implied moderate. Who exactly are you referring to? The talibani? The Yemeni? A certain historical figure? The more you write, the more you seem to simply not know what you are writing about.

You also wrote above to Robert Spencer:

"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."

Reread your own statement a few times. It's double talk and foolishness. Your "pious middle" doesn't subscribe to their own texts? How are they "pious"? Those texts, and their rigorous application, are very relevant, to all pious muslims, and unfortunately, to impious muslims and non-muslims as well.

If islam is "not your bag", as you write above, why is your blog subtitled with the word "islam" (along with anime, and hip-hop dance?)

You may not be, but you come across as, a scatterbrained speed freak. Just sayin'.

But have a happy Memorial Day, anyway. Think about Memorial Day, and think of all the hip-hop dance clubs you could be visiting in Tehran and Damascus and Mecca and etcetera.

Posted by: del

at May 28, 2006 9:16 AM

(Observation 1) Every society has its share of violent, misogynistic, hurtful and etc. people, a number of who will always try and bend their religion to serve as a cover, excuse or justification for their behavior. As a result, all religions have had their fringe cults and sects that have acted out in violent and/or other anti-social ways; that’s just a sad fact of human nature. But Islam, of all of the world’s major religions, seems to be the one most troubled by this problem, while at the same time; the more peaceful (moderate) element in the religion of Islam is seemingly powerless to stop this co-opting from happening.

(Observation 2) It doesn’t matter what verses of the Bible or Koran one chooses to emphasize, or how one may try to interpret them. The ultimate arbiter of what is or what is not a proper Christian or Muslim response is the lives and works of Jesus or Mohammed themselves. Jesus was above all, a man of peace, while Mohammed was anything but a man of peace.

A Christian may try to use scripture to justify or incite others to violence, but because Jesus himself would not have acted in that way, their words will never attract more than a handful of listeners.

But it is the converse that is true for Islam. While there may be many within the Muslim religion that want to live peacefully with their neighbors, Mohammed himself did not live that way. As a result, the voices of the “moderates” carry no weight with the community of Islam as a whole. After all, how can one Muslim, with any authority, tell another not to do what Mohammed himself did do? It’s not that the moderates can’t or won’t speak out against the radical element, it’s that the prophet Mohammed, by the example of his own life, left them with no voice to speak out with.

(Conclusion) That’s why Islam is not, never was or can ever be trusted to be a “religion of peace”. Because Mohammed himself was not a peaceful man and by the example of his own life, he has left the door wide open for the more violent element in any community or society, in which Islam is the dominant religion, to turn Islam into a tool to justify their violent actions against others.

In other words, Islam, as a religion, can’t be any more “peaceful” than, as a man, Mohammed was himself.

Posted by: wildiris

at May 28, 2006 9:26 AM

the Lackawanna 6 and Maher Hawash are not valid examples--you cannot prove they were moderates. you have no psych eval that points to Islam as the problem. perhaps they were fundamentalists.

i gave you two examples of muslim scholars, respected in their domain, who do not subscribe to your theories. i did not research this, i had read of them in relation to other topics. i suspect i could find many more if i worked at it. and so could you.
but you are not interested in any material that does not support your Islam is eeevul hypothesis.
i am a scientist and a mathematiciaan, and frankly, your approach to scholarship disgusts me.
you are biased and bigotted.
you have written FIVE books on this?
incredible.
and i imagine they all say the same thing, over and over, ad nauseum.
i have changed my mind, you are not a moron.
but you are not a scholar, you are a narrow minded bigot cherry picking material to prove an obdurate point.
you are supremely uninterested in the truth, or in making things better.
you could, like al-Muttawakkil, use the Qur'an to counter the doctrine of violent jihaad you write endlessly of. the Qur'an supercedes all auxilliary texts.
but you are not interested in that.

i imagine that when you guest on al-Jazeerha, western audiences will be saying, right on dude! (just like Wafa Sultan), while muslim audiences will either reguard you with incredulous jaw-dropping horror or laugh at your pretensions.
me too.
ha ha.

this al-Muttawakkil, robert and i discussed in email. i guess he failed to mention this on this thread. arabic cite--

Stacey Philbrick, who's currently woring out of Cairo in Egypt, recently posted a review of a book that's making all kinds of waves in the conservative Arab part of the world: Muhammed Abd al-Malik al-Mutawakkil's Islam and International Human Rights Declarations. Sadly, it appears to be available only in Arabic at the moment (Arabic citation: محمد عبد الملك المتوكل. 2004. الاسلام والاعلانات الدولية لحقوق الانسان. صنعاء: مطابع صنعاء الحديث للاوفت ).

condensed version from al-hiwar's review--

a) The reason that Muhammed took up arms against the Quraysh was because they were preventing people from converting to Islam. It cannot logically hold that he would take up arms in defense of individual choice, and then deny it to others.

b) There are scores of ayat mentioning the offense of kufr (unbelief), but no mention in the Quran of any worldly punishment. There are comparatively few mentions of the crimes of adultery, theft, and murder, but there are clearly articulated worldly punishments in the text of the Quran itself. Despite an ill-substantiated hadith to the contrary, one cannot hold that the immutable and perfect Quran simply "neglected to mention it." The decision – by states or by ulema - to punish a kafir is therefore illegitimate.

c) Those who draw a distinction between a kafir (unbeliever) and a murtad (apostate, or one who has "turned his back" on Islam after previously submitting, by birth or by conversion, to its authority) and advocate killing the murtad simply on the basis of his apostasy are also in error. The foundation of the numerous hadith that justify the killing of the murtad do so on the grounds that he (or, in one particularly well-noted case, she) takes up arms or otherwise conspires to overthrow the Islamic state. This is simply treason, and it should be treated as treason, he argues, not as an issue of conscience.

Each of these points is exhaustively documented by reference to the Quran, the Sunna of the prophet, and the writings of the fuqaha'. What is particularly interesting is that he cites clerics with conservative reputations, thus making the "hard case."

that is why i disagree with Ibn Warriq's avowed statement, that you don't need arabic to understand Islam. Books like these are not published in english--yet.
Debates and discussions of Islam are on arabic language tv stations all the time--but the MEMRI translations are often woefully inadequate or biased--and they do not translate material in which they have no interest.
But al-Jazeerha will soon be broadcasting an english language version.
Perhaps in time for Robert's show--
Ask Mr. Spencer About Jihaad would be a good title.
lolol! robert, you issue fatwa!!

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 28, 2006 9:52 AM

"Moderate" Muslims are not "moderate" they're asleep.

Posted by: Report

at May 28, 2006 12:57 PM

discussions of Islam are on arabic language tv stations all the time- this said by matoko kusanagi
cannot be relied to be anybut dishonest discussions.
when you do not admit passages in the Koran do bring about terror, killings of aposates, non muslims, women in general esspecially in countries with Sharia law as according to the Koran, then its all a big lie. the proof is in the statement made by immans and terrorist in the name of the Koran aka Allah.
actually the world does not need islamist to convert, we just need to educate non-muslims about the cult of islam and make plans to keep it out and destroy it within our lands. if muslims chose to become part of civilized humanity, they will plainly leave islam and or admit its failings and take out the parts that call for jihad, killings, heheadings of infidels, etc. otherwise, we in the West are onto you and YOU be forwarned, we will not put up with it much longer. our patience is getting very thin with this cult of death,if you do not change your ways, it will be done for you, and l can assure you, you will not like it one bit.

Posted by: Lulu

at May 28, 2006 1:51 PM

Robert Spencer,

Thank you for being so cordial.

Exercise in logic -
Hugh Fitzgerald's statement describes two extremes.
First extreme: One has a right to make decisions about Islam based on evidence for the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam given the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam.
Second extreme: One has no right to make decisions about Islam based on soothing words and assurances of some nice Muslims given the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam.
It is a very tiny step to restate the second extreme as follows:
Restatement: One has no right to make decisions about Islam based on nice Muslim practices given the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam.

The statement you stand by, a refusal to characterize Islam as a dangerous and violent religion because violence is not the focus of "a great deal of Islamic practice", such as dental hygiene, is exactly what the above restatement claims is invalid.

This is substantive disagreement. I have done exactly what you challenge the likes of Kusanagi and Esmay do. I have developed a rational argument on actual statements by you and Fitzgerald (=evidence) to arrive at a specific conclusion.

The conclusion is not exactly favorable to you. The purpose of debate in these comment threads is to Change Minds! The challenge is this; is your mind yet changed? Or are you so emotionally cordial to nice Muslim practices just as Kusanagi and Esmay seem so emotionally attached to nice Muslims that your mind will not be changed, no matter the logic, no matter the evidence? Do you suffer the same stubbornness they do?

Now there's a fight for you. Debating Kusanagi and Esmay is cake, as well as Endless. And remember, it is not weakness, but strength to change one's mind when it is the logical thing to do, all the more so when done in public, and addressing some scruffy no-name like me.

Sincerely,
neverpayretail

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 28, 2006 3:15 PM

Dan,

Regarding Kusanagi's invocation of mathematics, my first comment on this thread addressed that. I issued it to the thread, not to her. I think you and I are saying the same thing.

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 28, 2006 3:20 PM

Neverpayretail:

Let me repeat myself: I have no substantive disagreements on this issue with Hugh Fitzgerald. Of this I am 100% certain.

If you think you see one, you are misunderstanding either me or Hugh.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 28, 2006 3:22 PM

Matoko:

the Lackawanna 6 and Maher Hawash are not valid examples--you cannot prove they were moderates. you have no psych eval that points to Islam as the problem. perhaps they were fundamentalists.

You clearly don't know much, or anything, about either case, but it is useless for me to multiply examples here: nothing I could possibly give you is anything you would find acceptable.

i gave you two examples of muslim scholars, respected in their domain, who do not subscribe to your theories. i did not research this, i had read of them in relation to other topics. i suspect i could find many more if i worked at it. and so could you.

I have examined many such over the years. I am always happy to examine more. What kind of following do these men have among Muslims?

but you are not interested in any material that does not support your Islam is eeevul hypothesis.

Actually, I have asked for such material again and again and again.

i am a scientist and a mathematiciaan, and frankly, your approach to scholarship disgusts me. you are biased and bigotted.

In fact, no.

you have written FIVE books on this?

Yes.

incredible.

In fact, no.

and i imagine they all say the same thing, over and over, ad nauseum.

In fact, they're all different. Publishers don't like it when you turn in a book that has already been published.

i have changed my mind, you are not a moron. but you are not a scholar, you are a narrow minded bigot cherry picking material to prove an obdurate point.

Fine. Give me counter examples, please. Not just of lone scholars, please. Give me broad peaceful traditions within Islam's mainstream. If this is so easy to do, why won't you do it?

you are supremely uninterested in the truth, or in making things better.

Actually, that's the only thing I am interested in.

you could, like al-Muttawakkil, use the Qur'an to counter the doctrine of violent jihaad you write endlessly of. the Qur'an supercedes all auxilliary texts. but you are not interested in that.

It would be presumptuous of me, as a non-Muslim, to interpret the Qur'an for Muslims. All I do is report on interpretations. If such Qur'anic-based arguments rejecting violent jihad are as common as you suggest, please send me more than the work of these two scholars.

i imagine that when you guest on al-Jazeerha, western audiences will be saying, right on dude! (just like Wafa Sultan), while muslim audiences will either reguard you with incredulous jaw-dropping horror or laugh at your pretensions. me too. ha ha.

So you think Wafa Sultan was justly condemned as a "heretic" by the sheikh with whom she was appearing? Do you know what that means?

this al-Muttawakkil, robert and i discussed in email. i guess he failed to mention this on this thread. arabic cite--
Stacey Philbrick, who's currently woring out of Cairo in Egypt, recently posted a review of a book that's making all kinds of waves in the conservative Arab part of the world: Muhammed Abd al-Malik al-Mutawakkil's Islam and International Human Rights Declarations. Sadly, it appears to be available only in Arabic at the moment (Arabic citation: محمد عبد الملك المتوكل. 2004. الاسلام والاعلانات الدولية لحقوق الانسان. صنعاء: مطابع صنعاء الحديث للاوفت ).

I'll look for it. But again: what kind of following does he have?

condensed version from al-hiwar's review--
a) The reason that Muhammed took up arms against the Quraysh was because they were preventing people from converting to Islam. It cannot logically hold that he would take up arms in defense of individual choice, and then deny it to others.

b) There are scores of ayat mentioning the offense of kufr (unbelief), but no mention in the Quran of any worldly punishment. There are comparatively few mentions of the crimes of adultery, theft, and murder, but there are clearly articulated worldly punishments in the text of the Quran itself. Despite an ill-substantiated hadith to the contrary, one cannot hold that the immutable and perfect Quran simply "neglected to mention it." The decision – by states or by ulema - to punish a kafir is therefore illegitimate.

c) Those who draw a distinction between a kafir (unbeliever) and a murtad (apostate, or one who has "turned his back" on Islam after previously submitting, by birth or by conversion, to its authority) and advocate killing the murtad simply on the basis of his apostasy are also in error. The foundation of the numerous hadith that justify the killing of the murtad do so on the grounds that he (or, in one particularly well-noted case, she) takes up arms or otherwise conspires to overthrow the Islamic state. This is simply treason, and it should be treated as treason, he argues, not as an issue of conscience.

Each of these points is exhaustively documented by reference to the Quran, the Sunna of the prophet, and the writings of the fuqaha'. What is particularly interesting is that he cites clerics with conservative reputations, thus making the "hard case."

Great. What Muslim states implement these principles? If not, why not? And what are those citations, please? I asked you for them before.

that is why i disagree with Ibn Warriq's avowed statement, that you don't need arabic to understand Islam. Books like these are not published in english--yet.

Fine. But are you aware that there are people who know Arabic who also know that Islam contains elements that incite to violence, and has a doctrine teaching the subjugation of unbelievers? Do you think Muslim translators are so inept that they drop all this violence into Qur'an and Hadith that isn't there in the Arabic?

Debates and discussions of Islam are on arabic language tv stations all the time--but the MEMRI translations are often woefully inadequate or biased--and they do not translate material in which they have no interest. But al-Jazeerha will soon be broadcasting an english language version. Perhaps in time for Robert's show-- Ask Mr. Spencer About Jihaad would be a good title. lolol! robert, you issue fatwa!!

Your scorn would be more stinging if you had offered even a single counter example to the evidence I brought forth in support of my position.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 28, 2006 3:34 PM

What a deluded mental tosser!

A mathematics professor? Something like that can only be found in Arabia, like "Islamic science"...

"...you are supremely uninterested in the truth, or in making things better..."

Translation: "Truth" is Islam, everything else is false for this 'mathematics professor'. "Making things better" means: Making the world islamic or furthering the cause of Islam.

"Stop opposing Islam Now!", Mr. Spencer. Otherwise the 'moderates' might turn and 'become radicals'....

What a bizarre, twisted and totally hopeless failure to reason!

How very Islamic.....!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at May 28, 2006 4:10 PM

Actually Ms. Kusanagi, were Spencer to immerse himself as you suggest, and try to argue for a moderate islam, and do so WITHIN muslim theological circles, he would hurt the very cause you desire to see advanced.

For Spencer isn't a muslim, and his attempts at persuading muslims to adopt a "moderate" islam, would be deemed an act of outside interference, indeed hostility.

All Spencer can do is state the facts, point to the absence of REAL disagreement within islam about terror tactics, about jihad, and do as much as he can to alert people about the history and nature of islam and jihad.

Posted by: Dan

at May 28, 2006 4:29 PM

Right on, Dan! Sometimes anthropoids and troglodytes like "matoko kusanagi" are only stupid and believe in the slopply swill they're proliferating -- More often they're simply higglers and shills acting out of pure disengenuousness --

"matoko kusanagi" is one of those rare birds that is both a stupid believer, and a higgling shill.

Posted by: jsla

at May 28, 2006 5:18 PM

It also may interest you to know that Hugh Fitzgerald and I don't have a substantive disagreement on this point.

Has anyone ever met Hugh Fitzgerald? Could Hugh be Robert's alter ego? Kind of like good cop/bad cop? LOL

Seriously Robert, you didn't address the question at hand that Retail and others have brought up. You are an enigma to me. On one hand, you have devoted your life to warning the world about islam, but then you back away from condemning it for being what you go to great lengths to show it to be - a dangerous, violent religion with an ideology no different than Nazism.

I don't know you from a hole in the ground, so I don't know what makes you tick. But I think there might be a conflict within you. On one hand, years ago you discovered this vile ideology called islam, and you were propelled to wage an intellectual war against it, and you have made many enemies doing so. You launched this counter-jihad because islam violates your basic liberal dispostion.

But on the other side, I think you really are a liberal at heart, and as such, can not condemn a religion outright because to do so, regardless of how warranted, would violate some basic liberal programming in your consciousness. So you find yourself sometimes between people like Esmay critiquing you from the Left, and others, like myself, critiquing you from the Right.

I guess you still see islam as a religion, rather than an ideology, so you pull your hardest punches in deference to liberal ideals. Maybe you also see an element of race involved, so again, you pull your hardest punches. Or maybe, you are more clever than we think, and it is all strategic positioning and you are really twirling your moustache in Secure Undisclosed Locationville.

Maybe on one hand, you would like to see the end of islam, as your work constantly highlights how anti-social and dangerous it is, but I also think that you would not be able to pull the trigger yourself, so to speak. So I postulate there might be an inner conflict in you. Kind of like Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi. You wage a war on the rebel islamics from cyberspace, but when it comes down to it, you can't bring yourself to finish them off, just like Vader couldn't kill Luke. Something gets in the way.

But to continue the Star Wars reference, I invite you to join the dark side, Robert. Give in to your "hate", as the Emperor said, and just come out and say it:

Islam is a violent, dangerous religion.

You might feel so much better. Like coming out of the closet. "Yes, I am an islamophobe and I'm proud and I'm in your face."

Then sit back, and say, "Hey, that didn't hurt at all."

Posted by: somethingaboutislam

at May 28, 2006 6:58 PM

I'm a pepper, you're a pepper, we're all peppers? Or am I high? They're popping up all over...

Posted by: jsla

at May 28, 2006 7:02 PM

Mr Spencer and I have likely concluded our exchange on the May 28, 2006 "Esmay speaks" thread, with no satisfying result.

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 28, 2006 7:05 PM

Retail and SomethingAboutIslam:

Yeah, I'm a liberal. I have fangs too.

I will not be maneuvered into making a statement that would be simplistic and misleading.

Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism, and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad. You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany. If you met a Nazi in 1938, you would know what he thinks. But the fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows.

This does not mean that I think there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims; there isn't. But Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with.

To condemn it outright as such would also be too easily misunderstood in many ways. It would drive away people who would otherwise be our allies -- and I am not in the business of doing that. In this fight we need all the help we can get. It would also be seen as genocidal, and would thus be counterproductive to the anti-jihad effort.

So I will not be maneuvered into doing it. I have been quite specific about core elements of Islam that are evil and must be resisted by every decent human being. I have been quite specific about the circumstances under which Muslims should be allowed into Western countries in a sane society. If that is not enough for you, so be it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 28, 2006 7:24 PM

"It cannot logically hold that he would take up arms in defense of individual choice, and then deny it to others."

You ever hear of Henry Ford? When asked in what colors a consumer may purchase one of his cars he reportedly responded, "You can get one in any color you like, as long as its black."

Your logic is flawed. It is based upon an unprovable assumption. It would be completely understandable if mohammed defended freedom of choice for people to convert to his religion, but not from it, as seems to be the case.

I met far too many of this type in college. If you were an art student, it was assumed that you knew more about art than someone who wasn't. Same with computer science, physics, music, etc. But if you were a poli sci. or history major, everyone who wasn't assumed that their opinions were equally as valid as yours, even though neither was their field of study.

College isn't like the Krell brain machine in "Forbidden Planet". Getting a diploma in something doesn't immediately impart upon you all the knowledge in the world. Either learn how to structure a proper argument, present it respectfully, and defend it logically, or invest in a quanta of humility and recognize when you've been bested.

In my humble opinion, Mr. Spencer, you've stroked this individual's ego more than she deserves and given her far more recognition than she has earned. Let her go back and curl up and purr in Mr. Esmay's lap like a good little kitty, smugly, self-satified in the delusion that she has the key to the Grand Unified Theory of Islam.

To everyone else, not everyone or everything fits nicely and neatly into a small, clearly-marked box. Mr. Spencer makes his positions clear, even to someone like me who used to volunteer to run around doing dumb, dangerous things, with very lethal toys and machines, in places where arguably smarter people probably wouldn't have put themselves. If he neither fits into an artificial category nor tries to, accept that and move on.

One person's spade is another person's shovel is another person's entrenching tool is another persons improvised close combat weapon. If Mr. Spencer doesn't want to call islam a dangerous religion, that's his choice. If you need to call it something, look at the evidence with your own eyes, and call it what you want.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at May 28, 2006 7:34 PM

So you think Wafa Sultan was justly condemned as a "heretic" by the sheikh with whom she was appearing? Do you know what that means?

actually, al-Khouly did NOT call her a heretic, but an aetheist. do you want a link to the accurate (unMEMRI) translation?

here you go--from some actual arabic speakers. ;-)
Sultan/al-Khouly Discussion

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 28, 2006 8:10 PM

Okay, so you refuse to label islam violent and dangerous because:

1. you don't want to alienate allies

2. you don't want to sound like a "genocidal" bigot

3. you think Islam has enough good in it, to make such a sweeping statement dishonest.

Fair enough. However...

1. unnecessary but logical

2. unwarranted but logical

3. there's that inner conflict - sentimental

Two out of three will get you a pass on jihadwatch. Maybe a nuke in NY might help you go three for three. Once that happens, 1 and 2 won't be a concern anymore.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam

at May 28, 2006 8:12 PM

the al-Azhar school separates aetheists from apostates and heretics, unlike the wahabbist school.
Dr. al Kouly deliberately made the distinction, and then said he had no jurisdiction over her. he also quoted that "there is no compulsion in religion" Muhammed's words from the qur'an.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 28, 2006 8:14 PM

i have a good idea!
robert, since Dr. Faisal's show on al-Jazeerha

(Opposite Direction)

is most likely the one you will be eventually appearing on, you could translate some of the al-Jazeerha transcripts of these shows. I think

Opposite Direction

is on once a month.

Then you might be able to convince me that violent jihaad is mainstream thought in Islam, if it is actually featured in contemporary sources instead only archaeic or academic ones.
;-)

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at May 28, 2006 8:36 PM

This is only a partial transcript. I saw the video and clearly recall him calling her a heretic and refusing any more debate with her.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000800.html

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?
Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

[...]

Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

Posted by: DWB

at May 28, 2006 8:53 PM

"actually, al-Khouly did NOT call her a heretic, but an aetheist"

You are talking about distinctions that do not make a difference. The penalty for atheism is death. The penalty for heresy is death. The penalty for apostasy--which is what Sultan would be guilty of if al-Khouly accused her, a former Muslim, of now being an atheist--is death (this, the death penalty for public apostasy, is the position of all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, as Robert has already pointed out).

These are all major forms of disbelief, and in Islam the penalty for disbelief is generally death, with a few restrictions: Women and children may be spared and taken as property for Muslims (to be bought or sold or to be Islamized), but otherwise disbelievers who (a) refuse Islam and (b) refuse the terms of dhimmitude and (c) are not protected by temporary truce or tactical alliance with Muslims must be killed (this is the classic jihad policy which is accepted by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence). The women and children may be killed, however, if they speak against Islam. Women and children may also be killed if this is unavoidable in jihad (note: Jihad is obligatory and is therefore unavoidable; moreover the prophet's conduct in the attack on the people of Ta'if shows that women and children may be killed, and that was subsequently used as a precedent for subsequent jihadists. Indeed, many scholars believe that even Muslim civilians may be used by jihadists as human shields; Qaradawi and others are of this view, probably because it serves the larger goal of Islam, which outweighs the value of human life in the Koran-based value system).

So, when we take into account policies on apostasy, blasphemy, etc., and also take into account the legislation of jihad, the penalty for most forms of disbelief (i.e., any that involve public opposition to Islam) is death. That is why most of us use pseudonyms, and why those of us who don't use pseudonyms do not disclose our locations (or else (financial situation permitting) are heavily protected by security).

Koranic basis for killing disbelievers is discussed here (and in it you will learn a new Arabic word, "fasad"):
http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/KillingInKoran.htm
And more Koranic basis for killing of non-Muslims here:
http:
//islamwatch.forumup.in/post-437-islamwatch.html#437

Attempting to interpret such phrases as "no compulsion in religion" (2:256) according to modern western sensibilities is nice, but it has nothing to do with what this meant to Mohammad (or author(s) of the Koran) in 7th-8th century. For the authors of the Koran, it was perfectly consistent to say "no compulsion in religion" but also that we'll kill you if you don't convert (9:5) and will fight you until there is no more disbelief (2:193, 8:39)--which entails fighting until there are no more disbelievers--and if you disagree with Mohammad you can go hang yourself (22:15), Allah will burn you in hell if you don't believe (2:257), etc.

Posted by: Archimedes

at May 28, 2006 9:07 PM

"Then you might be able to convince me that violent jihaad is mainstream thought in Islam," --Matoko

Convince you? You said you wanted poll results. These are easy to find; I already cited some. Check out the PEW site. Also the recent PBS and CBC documentary Nuclear Jihad stated that support for bin Laden in Pakistan is 60%. What's your definition of "mainstream"? You won't accept textual evidence from the Koran and ahadith and Sira, which the jihadists themselves cite. You won't accept nearly 1400 years of Islamic orthodoxy, nor the fact that jihad against non-Muslims is accepted by all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence today. You will not accept as evidence Islamic history (e.g., see Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad). You will not accept as evidence the many reports, from all over the world, of Koran-inspired mayhem, terrorism, and destruction of human life. You will, no doubt, reject all polling evidence which shows that a large minority to a small majority of Muslims accept suicide bombing, approve of bin Laden, etc (these figures would be even higher if the question specified the case where the only victims were non-Muslims).

What evidence, then, would you accept?

Posted by: Archimedes

at May 28, 2006 9:25 PM

Ms. Kusanagi, it might interest you to know that al Azhar University has become thoroughly radicalized, and as evidence we can direct you to a recent edict that emerged from that ancient institution, which deemed female genital mutillation as licit, and consistent with islam and the Shariaa.

That should make you think about what passes for "moderation" within islam.

Islam hasn't reconciled itself to a PRE-modern world, let alone a modern one, or the post-modern that prevailes presently.

The atheism, especially the aggressive atheism that you profess, they deem anathema. And for them, an anathema is something they take seriously. Seriously enough to kill for.

It's pretty safe to say that islam is the longest running social pathology in human history. Nothing else really even comes close, except maybe the brutal CASTE system in India. A CASTE system that finds similarities within islam.

Posted by: Dan

at May 28, 2006 10:03 PM

"Aetheist."

Another attractive and recurring idiosyncratic spelling from our math grrrl.

Others are "archaeic", "cite" (for "site"), "ad nauseum", "jihaadii" and of course the deliberately bird-flipping "xian" and "xianity", which she claims as a "convenient shorthand" while laboriously typing "Qur'anic" where "koranic" would do.

I know, dear friends, that it is generally unedifying to focus on the hobbling of orthographical cripples, but in her case I find it instructive and strangely filling.

As for the vexed question of whether to condemn Islam as a whole, that is of course best left to the individual conscience.

But hark ye! Here is how I answer it. We are talking about a notional god whose religion and prophet somehow, after fourteen hundred years, here in the second half of the first decade of the third millennium since the birth of another hotly disputed prophet or god or avatar or whatever you hold Jesus to have been, whose religion and prophet, I say, Islam and Mahomet, seem to necessitate perpetual discussions over whether or not it is lawful and virtuous to behead those who do not submit to them, or those who mock them, or those who first submit and then fall away, or those who cause others to doubt them, or any number of other transgressions all of which involve whether or not one believes in something that is, first, unprovable, and second, only one among many things that may be believed with greater or lesser credibility by men and women of greater or lesser intelligence and capacity for spiritual versus other kinds of experience.

And to all this I say quite simply that it is unacceptable at this stage in human development for there to be any discussion at at all about whether such beheadings or killings or punishment of any kind whatsoever are lawful and desirable under any circumstances whatsoever, and that any "religion" or "cult" or "system of belief" that engages in and encourages such questions (that is, engages in them as anything other than a fanciful speculation that is a priori to be answered in the negative) as a sincere enquiry with the potential to be answered in the affirmative is illegitimate and to be crushed, stamped out and rejected.

In other words, just because some Mahometans imagine that their belief in the big, jealous, angry god with personality issues and an anger management problem entitles them to speculate about what punishments to apply to those who do not share their submission to such an entity, whether or not he in fact exists, does not mean they are so entitled or that the rest of us are obliged to abide these threats with good grace.

I will even go much further than that an state unequivocally that even if their god exists he should not be submitted to by any self-respecting creature, because he is not a god but a tyrant.

And the same goes for any brand of "Xianity" or any other religion that arrogates to itself similar rights.

Enfin, to Islam I say what M. Arouet, said repeatedly and with gusto and vehemence about the Church Militant and Triumphant and its claims to temporal authority:

Écrasez l'Infâme.

Posted by: Cato the Elder

at May 28, 2006 11:09 PM

Spencer sez:

"... Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with..."

What does that mean? Ignorance of the texts? Hardly. Or is it because 70 % of Mohammedans around the world are illiterate, indoctrinated-stupid, (because of Islam) and live in abject poverty?

Doesn't comfort me: Even if they are illiterate and poor, they can be whipped into violent rages at the drop of a Koran, regardless of what their level of understanding of Islam is, they will eagerly run amok and cut your head off if their imams tells them that the time is right for jihad.

No Sir: The large scale of Mohammedans in the lands of the infidels makes the life's of those infidels very unpleasant, dangerous expensive, etc. etc.

You know the rest....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at May 28, 2006 11:44 PM

I'd like to touch on the Islam-Nazism comparison again, briefly. Robert writes:

"Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism,
and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad."

Yes, but as you point out a few words later, Nazism was just getting started. Was Islam so multifaceted in its early years of banditry and assassination?

"You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany."

True, 1400 years of history makes for a more complicated study, but there's something terribly uncomplicated about Islam too; the fanaticism, the expansionism, the intolerance, the brutality. These are the main lines of analogy.

"If you met a Nazi in 1938, you would know what he thinks. But the fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows."

I don't know, Nazis weren't all predictable cartoon figures. Cultured, aristocratic men like Albert Speer and Richard Strauss also fell under the spell to varying degrees and gave of their talent and prestige. Surely Nazism would have sprouted many branches and gained in complexity over time had it survived its violent birth like Islam did.

Perhaps the real secret to the success of both Islam and Nazism is/was the price paid by those who attempt(ed) to oppose them.

I have no interest in trying to push Robert to equate Islam and Nazism, or to at least acknowledge some eerie similarities. Nor to psychoanalyze him for why he won't do it.

Robert has excellent reasons for what he thinks, and why he will or won't say or write something. I am in complete agreement on the importance of cultivating allies, even inside Islam if possible (though that's another big argument), and for erecting the biggest tent possible to gather under in order to resist the violent Jihad that is a black plague on the world today.

Posted by: alexon

at May 29, 2006 1:04 AM

Robert Spencer,

Manuevered? Open, honest debate is not about maneuvering. This is not some game. In my view open, Honest debate is about changing minds with data and logic, exactly as I have brought to this exchange. What happened to miswak and tasawwuf? Now it is about the multiple facets of Islam, and all sorts of Muslims, here, there, and everywhere, over 1400 years? Why didn't you say that in the first place? It is not I doing the maneuvering. Perhaps you did not say this before because it makes you sound just like Esmay & Co. In this exchange, it appears that for You debate is all about maneuvering. Oh, and this phrase "simplistic and misleading" is just more Esmayitis creeping into your discourse when backed up against a wall.

Your own research on Islam drives decent, thinking people to declare Islam violent and dangerous. Yet, you refuse that step. You have fangs? Some kind of threat?. Figuratively speaking, your refusal makes you a dog on a leash (with fangs), who is very, very good at barking endlessly (and I commend the excellent substance behind the bark) at the likes of Esmay, intellectually speaking, a mere chattery squirrel. People get used to the bark, and know they can walk safely past. You run out to the end of your self-imposed chain, and cannot reach them. They learn to Ignore You.

You reply that condemning Islam "would also be seen as genocidal". Huh? Condemning a system of belief is genocide? This is absolute nonsense. You argue endlessly that Islam supports violent jihad, and you are suddenly worried that rejecting Islam will be viewed as genocide by the very jihadists you already condemn? Ridiculous. They could not hate us any more, and so what if they do? Us rejecting Islam will not get them any more money or weapons or recruits than they already get anyway. You cannot possibly Know different.

Regarding the fight, and allies, in each case Islam is the threat. Refusal to reject Islam only plays into the enemy's hands. Any democracy that does not reject Islam will come under Islamic pressure with the mere presence of Islam, especially absent rejection. The only sane society is the one that rejects Islam, so as to avoid the big waste of resources to fight it, and the risk of losing to Islam. Any other position is weakness.

Your refusal to reject Islam, an act your own research supports, makes you Weak, which is exactly what the enemy seeks. As long as you are merely a barking dog on the end of a leash, the enemy know your limits, and so can easily strategize around you.

And no, Weakness is not "good enough" for me.

Sincerely,
neverpayretail

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 29, 2006 3:48 AM

Retail:

In this as in any subject, there are multiple legitimate conclusions that may be drawn from the same evidence.

I think your analysis of the question at hand is not only wrong, but manifests astoundingly poor judgment, which if followed would drastically weaken the anti-jihad resistance.

Now, enough.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 29, 2006 7:06 AM

Robert Spencer,

As in any subject, facts, disciplined logic, and the lessons of history rule out the legitimacy of many conclusions.

I think your refusal to declare Islam dangerous and violent on the basis of your own research shows astoundingly poor judgment, which serves to strengthen the jihad movement. To give credit where due, much of what you do does damage that movement.

I now know something of you that was before hidden - at least from me. Thank you for the exchange. I had no idea the exchange would play out as it has. Live and learn.

Note: There may be some reading this new to the exchange referenced above. If you wish to follow it, it initiated on the May 27, 2006 JW thread entitled "On assertions without evidence", jumped to the May 28, 2006 JW thread entitled "Esmay speaks", and then late in the exchange began to be double-posted on both threads.

Sincerely,
Neverpayretail

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 29, 2006 2:00 PM

"I think your refusal to declare Islam dangerous and violent on the basis of your own research shows astoundingly poor judgment, which serves to strengthen the jihad movement. "

Such a staggeringly stupid comment really doesn't deserve any attention. But I would like to suggest that such comments directed towards the author of so much invaluable material and the sponsor and owner of this site is seriously disrespectful.

Your hour of strutting and fretting is up. If you don't know what comes next -- read the play.

Posted by: jsla

at May 29, 2006 5:54 PM