Jihad Watch: Esmay speaks

May 28, 2006

Esmay speaks

Garbo talks! Dean Esmay has finally responded to my post here. His reply, as I might have expected, is nasty, mean-spirited, and full of ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations of my work and views.

Here is the substance:

Still, let's try to get to the meat of this: Spencer's ultimate argument is based on a red herring: I (and others) are supposed to point to any mainstream school of Islamic thought that completely rejects holy war (violent jihad). Well, none of them do. So what? I never thought they did.
Hey Robert! The Bible says not one word anywhere in it about slavery being wrong. Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong! Sure you say that some mainstream Christian groups have changed their ways on this, but their Bible and the vast majority of the faith's history do not agree! Prove me wrong, prove me wrong!

Well, obviously this is a false analogy. If there were a global movement of Christian slavers today, justifying their actions by the Bible, it would be a workable analogy. But there isn't.

Also, I am not saying that the Bible and the Qur'an are the only sources. Far from it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that the Seventh Commandment forbids slavery. I frequently mention Islamic sources other than the Qur'an that only buttress the message of violence in it, rather than mitigating that message -- see, for example, here.

In other words, the jihadists are working from a broad, mainstream tradition within Islam, not just from a few Qur'an verses. There are many implications of this. But above all, any genuine Islamic reformer needs to confront this entire jurisprudential tradition -- not just ignore its existence.

Esmay also explains why he is so good and I am so evil:

Ditto his bizarre request that someone provide him with Islamic texts sufficient to make violent radicals put down their weapons--which I think any sane person would view as an outright impossibility.
Now here's the thing: I knew this was impossible before I'd ever heard of Robert Spencer, and so did Robert Spencer. So what is the purpose of this argument? Well one of us, apparently, finds the fact far more significant than the other one does. And one of us apparantly makes a living selling books and on speaking engagements to explain how violent jihadism is to be found in Islamic scholarship. The other goes out of his way to befriend muslims who are anti-terrorism, and to highlight writings by muslims who reject terrorism. One of us obviously wants to help muslims, while the other insists that no he doesn't hate muslims he just doesn't trust any of them who object to violence on religious grounds.

I have explained this again and again, and he ignores it: I am for moderate Muslims who reject terrorism. I am not for those who try to sell me a bill of goods about how there is no basis in the Qur'an or Sunnah for religiously-based violence. That is not reform; it is deception. I love the former, but I will not put up with the latter. Esmay shows no sign of caring about the distinction. He says this:

What also troubles me, Robert, is that you claim you want to defeat jihadist terrorism, and you also claim you want to help muslims who work toward examining troubling aspects within their faith, but you accuse muslims who disagree with you of lying to you--they apparently can't just be wrong, or draw different conclusions from you.

The difference is actually this: if a Lutheran preacher in 1520 said, "the Church teaches transubstantiation, and that is wrong," he would have been a reformer (leaving aside the question of the legitimacy of the reform, which has nothing to do with my point). If he had said, "the Church has never taught transubstantiation," he would not have been a reformer. He would have been a deceiver.

Anyway, for Esmay it is all because I have a tiny readership, and he has a huge one:

Spencer says he doesn't do anything like this, but in fact this is exactly what he's doing here. Apparently, from what I can see, he does it for a living, which is probably why he's calling out high-traffic bloggers to pick fights with; it's an absolute certainty that I have a lot more readers than he does, and he probably knows it despite his obsessively repeated claims that nobody reads me and that I am utterly unimportant to him (yes, so unimportant he feels the need to send me obsessive, juvenile emails and repeated taunts from his blog).

This is false in a number of ways. In the first place, I didn't pick a fight with him; he was attacking me and my work before I had ever heard his name. As for readership, I was told by some people after my first response to him that he had a tiny readership, and that was borne out by this, which is what I base my assessment of readership on; it could be wrong for all I know. Actually it doesn't matter, because I was actually referring to the impossibility of convincing him of anything, but the possibility of convincing people of good will. But anyway, it looks from that as if Jihad Watch has a much larger readership than Dean's World. You tell me if I am reading that wrong and that the lower line actually somehow signifies a larger readership. But I don't think it does.

And as for those "juvenile" emails, Esmay is no doubt referring to my reference to Matoko Kusanagi as "dodgy company" and my sarcastic reference to his calling me a traitor, when I said I was late for a flag-burning. I confess to being acerbic. But he ignores the substantive points I made in those emails, as he has breezed by virtually all the substantive points I have made. Here is a portion of one -- which answers his point that it is absurd for me to call on moderate Muslims to refute the mujahedin. Juvenile? Taunting? You be the judge. Esmay's statements are double indented, mine are single indented:

Most of the muslims I know say you're incredibly duplicitous and malicious and engage in circular logic and straw man arguments

I wish you or they would provide an example of this duplicity and malice. The fact is that only I know what is in my heart, and whether I am doing this out of malice, and only I can know such a thing -- just as only you know your own motives for anything. Their case would be aided considerably by specific examples of these alleged crimes. But all I can tell you is that I am doing my best to report honestly about Islamic theology and the Islamic world, and that the fact that I constantly meet with such charges -- bereft as always of examples -- makes me in turn doubt the good faith of those who make them.

--the most laughable being your demand that someone provide sufficient references to make the violent jihadis put down their arms, which any idiot knows is completely impossible.

This isn't laughable in the least. Nor should it be impossible if what you and people like Matoko are saying about Islam were true. If the broad mainstream of peaceful Muslims really had the Qur'an and Islamic theology on their side, and they were just as appalled as anyone else by the global activity of the jihadists, they would be doing things like holding classes in every mosque, teaching Muslims the true peaceful Islam and inoculating them against recruitment by the mujahedin, which proceeds along the self-professed assumption that they represent "true Islam" and "pure Islam." If this is not the case, as the moderates insist it isn't, then they could do a great service to the Muslim community worldwide, and to the world at large, if they began a large-scale campaign to discredit the mujahedin on Islamic grounds.

I don't think this is unreasonable at all, and I think it's telling that it doesn't exist. I speak of making violent jihadis lay down their arms in that context -- assuming that someone who believes he is carrying out the will of Allah, as they undeniably do, will change his behavior if he comes to see the will of Allah in a different light. But ultimately what I am calling for in that way is the kind of campaign to which I refer above.

Thank you for your very first reasoned response, almost entirely free of insults and abuse. I can see from your site that you have good intentions, and have been stunned by your boiling and uninformed hostility toward me and my work. That hostility may continue, but I am going to keep giving you reasoned responses to your points, as I think ultimately we are working in the same direction -- although I am aware you may indignantly reject such an idea.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Anyway, Esmay has entangled himself in an insuperable contradiction: he has admitted that no "mainstream school of Islamic thought...completely rejects holy war (violent jihad)." Then he renews his accusation that I am taking "the most tendentious and pernicious interpretations" of Islamic scholarship and declaring "that these are the inescapably correct views." Well, if no mainstream school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects violent jihad, then violent jihad is the Islamic mainstream -- and it is not I who am cherry-picking among Islamic texts to create my own private Islam.

The exchange between Dean Esmay and me is available for everyone to see. He accused me of misrepresenting peaceful Islam, and has now acknowledged that peaceful Islam is not mainstream. He did not respond to my request to demonstrate that mainstream Islamic teaching is peaceful and tolerant, which was his initial objection to my work -- and of course, he cannot do so. As soon as his Muslim foes of terror are willing to acknowledge that as well, and to work among Muslims to mitigate the power of the Qur'an and Sunnah to recruit and motivate terrorists, I'll be happy to give them all support. But as long as they continue to deny that that power exists at all, I respectfully decline to play along.

Posted by Robert at May 28, 2006 6:52 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.)

I know of Robert Spencer. I have read his books. I never heard of this Esmay character.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069

at May 28, 2006 7:29 AM

esmay just wants to win a debate. He has formed his conclusions and he sticks to them. I think he has an ego problem. No open mind, not listening to any rational thing, not even bothering to just a little matter on this site. No, I think the mind is open, it is open from all sides. Reason blows in, reason blows out.

Posted by: arjun.sevak

at May 28, 2006 7:30 AM

Robert, never get in an argument with a fool. Passersby might not be able to tell which one one of you is the fool.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069

at May 28, 2006 7:44 AM

Bohemond:

If they can't, then I have utterly failed to communicate my point. We'll see how reactions go.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 28, 2006 7:52 AM

I read these attacks on Robert from guys like this Esmay and that Auster and all I can do is throw up my hands and ask to borrow someone's copy of Dummies for Dummies. I just don't get it!

Posted by: Shy Guy

at May 28, 2006 8:13 AM

I am far from being an expert on islam but I know when someone is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes and I steer clear of people like Esmay. I post here because most of us are on the same side. Most of us realize the truth is islams enemy, none of the we can work it out peacefully types has actively attempted that feat of magic. The best we can do with muslims is form limited alliances and temporary treaties. Their core belief systems and our are not compatible and assimilation can only happen through force. Their goal of converting us all can not be changed, bent tweaked or controlled. Only two outcomes to this struggle are possible, the end of freedom or the end of islam. When free societies openly debate the cost of cowing down to islam and the benefits (if any) it brings, we will finally be headed in the right direction. Robert and those like-minded early soldiers in this battle will go down in history as leading the charge. The others? Well history doesn’t like those who advocate alliances with the enemy. Roberts ‘show me the proof” mentality works. I have beaten back many coworkers and relatives armed with typical PC arguments of peaceful muslims and all religions are violent. Those types of arguments are shallow and tired. Each person we wake up spreads the truth. I could not have proved the threat posed by islam without Robert and his books. I don't have the knowledge nor the resources. I can only influence my limited spire of influence, Robert has a growing global following. You should be proud the PC/Dhimmi types continuously attempt to discredit you and even prouder they continuously fail.

Posted by: Ronin

at May 28, 2006 8:36 AM

The coin never drops:

Another lefty looney in my town has just last week accused me that 'I have become far more radicalized since 9/11"- , that "my activities only contribute to 'polarize' the the camps of the Mohammedans & infidels and incite 'moderate' muslims" which turns them into 'radicals', etc. etc.

I walked out in disgust.

Last night I went to the carnival in Port Douglas. I saw hundreds of young, scantily clad women have fun and enjoy themselves. Later on I took a stroll around town, watching young, happy couples walking home, laughing, having fun.

Suddenly, it occurred to me that we have no inbuilt resistance to Muhammedan infiltration. Our people are totally unprepared and far too naive to deal with cunning and deceit, and the evil of Islam.

We will collapse like the Incas when the Conquistadors invaded...

So by not talking about it, by trying to dodge the issues, the problem will go away? Don't think so...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at May 28, 2006 8:42 AM

The fact is that only I know what is in my heart, and whether I am doing this out of malice, and only I can know such a thing -- just as only you know your own motives for anything.........For me this the key to the war on terror...It is a battle of right or wrong...good or evil....Slitting a womans throat with a boxcutter and then ramming a jet into a building is evil..no matter what you claim is the reason for this action.Taking a 16 year old boy from his father is wrong.The heart very much is a part of this war...EVIL IS EVIL under any name!

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 8:46 AM

I am often reminded (as you may be bored to read again) of Ernest Becker's book, The Denial of Death. Becker draws out WHY folks get so emotional (and in Esmay's case, rigid) about arguments. The reason is this: we have no guarantee of living into the next second, and our worldview is a way of ensuring (in our minds) that we will live and prosper into the next second. On the level of symbol, we fear that if we lose an argument, we die.

The sociobiologist dude (featured in another thread) was so deep into the egotism of academics that he cannot see that simple truth is what counts, not who tells the truth. Esmay is less of an academic and may come around sooner.

Islam is a political philosophy with a religious justification. The miserably named "War on Terror" is mis-spending limited resources if it is not addressing the dangers of sharia.

Islam is itself a problem.

Posted by: StillBreathing

at May 28, 2006 8:55 AM

"Suddenly, it occurred to me that we have no inbuilt resistance to Muhammedan infiltration. Our people are totally unprepared and far too naive to deal with cunning and deceit, and the evil of Islam."
-- from a posting above

Unprepared, uneducated, and unfocussed.

Newscasters in the United States are right now too busy trying to find out what that strange name "Shiloh" means to bother to find out what it is exactly that Sunnis have against Shi'a, and vice-versa, in Iraq, much less discover that they have been at each other's throats a thousand years before the founding of the Americna Republic.

Why does that matter? Because it is obvious that those who now want us to stay in tarbaby Iraq, and to be tied down, will shriek that "we caused the problem" and "we have to stay and fix it" and "we just can't leave."

Unprepared, uneducated, unfocussed. To a suicidal degree.

Posted by: Hugh

at May 28, 2006 8:57 AM

We are known for the company we keep.And we can take nothing with us when we die... except the knowledge that we tried in our on small way(in my case lol )to make a difference.Robert you have made a difference many of us here learned about islam from your books,we are able to send or familys and friends to this website for the info they need.Please fight on.I am not pandering (lol ) Like I said in an earlier post.I am from the time the good guys won.....Lets bring back those days.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 9:04 AM

Robert, I am stunned by your elegant and witty rebuttal of this person's ravings. I am also amazed though at how much time you are investing in dealing with his ridiculous assertions. So often he does not even seem to understand the point you are making. Your comparison of the traffic analysis is very damning for the credibility of Mr Esmay and really I think he should go into the forest and howl at the trees as he doesnt appear to have much of an audience otherwise. But, I have learned from the writings on this site that one strategy of the jihadists is to consume our resources, economic, social and judicial to reduce our ability to fight back even in the court of public opinion and so I hope you wont allow yourself to be trapped into wasting your valuable time on this lightweight.

Best wishes.

Posted by: payingattention

at May 28, 2006 9:05 AM

Esmay by himself is unimportant. He simply offers, on a convenient platter, specific examples of a more general idiocy. Pointing those idiocies out, all the omissions, the illogic, the missstatements, the miscomprehension, the crudeness of thought and expression, is not a waste of time because of their generic nature.

Posted by: Hugh

at May 28, 2006 9:18 AM

Hey Robert! The Bible says not one word anywhere in it about slavery being wrong. Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!

The koran says not one word anywhere in it about slavery being wrong.

In fact, it was because of the islamic slave traders that we had slavery as we think of it in the first place!

Moreover, because of the koran -- the islamics are still the primary slave traders today.

"Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!"

Posted by: witness

at May 28, 2006 9:20 AM

Even an idiot would call this guy an idiot.

Posted by: Prickzilla

at May 28, 2006 9:21 AM

I agree with Hugh, If Robert points out what is wrong with the thought process they use.He has added a weapon to use in the war on terror.Not all the weapons we use go bang bang.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 9:29 AM

"Pointing those idiocies out, all the omissions, the illogic, the missstatements, the miscomprehension, the crudeness of thought and expression, is not a waste of time because of their generic nature."

Kill one, frighten ten-thousand...or something to that effect.

Esmay on his own may not be worth the effort, but he flings at Mr. Spencer common arguments. Defeating them in this particular case serves to defeat them in others by virtue of their similarity. In other words, Mr. Esmay steps to the front of the pack, Robert knocks him down and serves him up as an example to the rest.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at May 28, 2006 9:29 AM

Robert knocks him down and serves him up as an example to the rest....well said Eisenhund

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 9:34 AM

"Most of the muslims I know say you're incredibly duplicitous and malicious and engage in circular logic and straw man arguments "

hey, captain obvious, there is no wonder that muslims you know find this site horrible and would do anything to bring it down (even phisically). That's the religion of peace at its finest

Posted by: gorniak

at May 28, 2006 9:35 AM

Robert simply asks that Muslims acknowledge the militant(Jihad) teachings in the Quran, however we have seen Muslims continiously deny that there exists these kind of teachings in the Quran. When confronted about them; some clerics like to argue that if you can't understand Arabic then you are misreading the surahs, and the hadiths. Of course this is quite absurd because more than 80 Pct. of muslims throughout the world do not speak Arabic or Farsi.

The simple test has always been that you need to acknowledge that you have a problem before you can correct it. You Can't help a person get on the right path until they recognize or are willing to admit they have a problem (Psyche 101) be it alcohol and drugs. Abusive behavior is sometimes a learned thing in a disfunctional family,and thus it is difficult to correct it unless they are willing to recognize it for what it is.

Posted by: Mackie

at May 28, 2006 9:41 AM

Most of the muslims I know say you're incredibly duplicitous and malicious and engage in circular logic and straw man arguments ".......
We are known for the company we keep

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 9:46 AM

In the face of outrageous verbal bullying, Robert unwaveringly sticks to his pedagogical mission, patiently dissecting arguments using only the truth as his guide, always open to correction, but resolute in standing against unreason and deception, deliberate or otherwise. His marvelous equanimity is an inspiration to me.

Posted by: Stendec

at May 28, 2006 10:16 AM

Esmay wrote:
Hey Robert! The Bible says not one word anywhere in it about slavery being wrong. Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!

Hey Esmay, consider yourself proven wrong:

NIV 1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that law {9 Or that the law} is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine...

Posted by: markjames

at May 28, 2006 10:27 AM

Whenever I see somebody resort to the "I have more readers than you do" argument I know that person is a loser who knows that they have lost the argument, since clearly the number of readers one has means little or nothing in terms of whether you know what you're talking about or not. And, knowing nice Muslims obviously doesn't mean anything regarding whether or not mainstream Islamic doctrine is supportive of violent Jihad or not. Esmay, who I used to regard as a good blogger, really comes off looking like an idiot here. He's totally out of his league.

Posted by: Eye Doc

at May 28, 2006 10:37 AM

Hey Robert! The Bible says not one word anywhere in it about slavery being wrong. Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!.............Both Ezekiel 27 and Revelation 18 deal with GODS feeling on slavery...only people who spend no time in the BIBLE would claim the BIBLE has anything postive to say about slavery.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 10:59 AM

Sorry for being graphic, but when I see arguments like "I have more readers than you do", I read them as "my penis is longer than yours".

Just a thought…

Posted by: DoktorNo

at May 28, 2006 11:28 AM

Onesimus.

Yes, Mr. Esmay, the Christian New Testament supports slavery - slavery to Christ. And I would much rather be his doulos than Mohammed's.

I respect your convictions, Robert, but it is astounding to witness the amount of energy you've exercised on this circular, opaque, meritless poseur who obviously just wants to glom onto your notoriety to become the latest darling of the latest media darlings. I do hope, though, that more are introduced to JihadWatch through this.

DoktorNo: I believe Robert was merely responding to the fallacious argument, hoping to dispose of it. The whole point, as Robert has stated, is to not let unfounded assertions remain unchallenged.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen

at May 28, 2006 11:36 AM

The above post was supposed to start with the sentence:

Mr. Esmay may also like to read the Letter to Philemon, and Paul's plea for the Emancipation of Onesimus.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen

at May 28, 2006 11:46 AM

"As soon as his Muslim foes of terror are willing to acknowledge that as well, and to work among Muslims to mitigate the power of the Qur'an and Sunnah to recruit and motivate terrorists, I'll be happy to give them all support. But as long as they continue to deny that that power exists at all, I respectfully decline to play along."

Rumplestilskin for grown-ups..

"Demons, Your names are Jihhad and Dhimmi."

"You know our names"

RS-

Every children's fable, every wisdom of the ages, tells us that we must name the daemon(s) to have power over them, we must deliberately and with courage address the daemon(s) by name to have power over them. The names of Islam's daemons are Jihad and Dhimmi. You have named them and openly called them by name and then called them evil to their faces. Unless all of Islam does the same the Deamon will devour them.

You are a friend to Muslims.

Posted by: Frank

at May 28, 2006 12:27 PM

GREETINGS INFIDELS AND GAY MUSLIMS!, ive read dean's inane rantings,and not so clever muses!.This man has deprived the "village of an idiot"!,ive seen "wiser eating grass...and cleaner too".He speaks with forked tounge,typical traits of an apologist muslim....

Posted by: scotsguy

at May 28, 2006 12:40 PM

It is obvious that Mr. Esmay has bought into all the PC-speak about Christianity. It seems that he hasn't actually spoken to a real mainstream Christian in quite a few years, or, perhaps, at all.

His attempts to tar Christianity with the same brush as islam neglects the complete difference each faith makes in its claims about its scriptures. For a mainstream Christian the Bible is inspired, it is the word of God filtered through the fallible minds of men and women and is therefore, in and of itself, fallible also; it is merely the best guide to God's thoughts that we currently have and we freely acknowledge that God gave us the power of reason to use alongside our readings of the scriptures. Sometimes, we acknowledge, the Bible isn't even man's interpretation of what he thought God was trying to say - it is simply one man's personal thoughts and beliefs that he felt inspired by God to write down.

For islam, on the other hand, the koran is the word of God (well, allah, which is probably not the same as God at all, in my opinion), absolute, unfiltered, verbatim truth as far as the moslem world sees it. It cannot be interpreted, it is not permissible to apply reason to it, it is not permissible to ignore any part of it, for it is the literal word of allah. It can never change and no new experience of mankind can ever alter its meaning one jot or tittle.

It is Mr. Esmay's failure to appreciate this important distinction between the approaches to the two sets of writings which leads him to say the faintly risible things that he does about modern Christian beliefs and standards.

Moreover, when he makes the point that Christians, or Christianity, has, in the past, behaved in such-and-such a reprehensible way and therefore should not criticise the moslems of today for doing or believing the same thing he is ignoring that for mainstream Christians the revelation of Christ's message of love did not stop two-thousand years ago but is ongoing. Christians are still striving to change, to conform more nearly to the model of Christ. We are still listening to the Holy Ghost and still receiving revelation. We are still growing and changing and developing and learning. Not for nothing do we refer to ourselves as the children of God because, like children, we are still growing up.

This process of growing up can never happen in islam because the koran is fixed and immutable and nobody is allowed to apply reason to it or to re-interpret it or to give more credence to some verses than to others. Small wonder, then, that as the centuries have passed islam has begun to look like a barbarous, Satan worshipping death cult whilst the secular, liberal democracies of the West with their Christian heritage have forged ahead politically, economically, socially and, most importantly, morally. Only in the West does one find the deep level of moral debate that we are used to; only here is there any hope for mankind's future development.

Mr. Esmay, I have only one thing to say to you - grow up!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem

at May 28, 2006 12:43 PM

It is obvious that Mr. Esmay has bought into all the PC-speak about Christianity. It seems that he hasn't actually spoken to a real mainstream Christian in quite a few years, or, perhaps, at all.

Mr. Esmay, I have only one thing to say to you - grow up!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem

at May 28, 2006 12:44 PM

Sorry about the double post. My finger slipped.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem

at May 28, 2006 12:46 PM

Mr. Esmay worries about non-existant problems with Christianity and the Bible (the Inquisitions are long gone, slavery was outlawed by Christians, starting in England and ending with a Civil War in America... or did Mr. E cut those classes in history?) when we have an ongoing, world-spanning, daily terroristic problem with the "religion of peace", AKA Islam, and specifically with intolerant, dogmatic, anti-freedom, misogynistic Islamic Imperialism.

Now, what is his point?

That he knows Muslims who do not really follow the Koran?

Wonderful.

I hope this trend continues and that they all Mohammedans become apostates to the playbook of that pedophile warlord, popularly known as the "Recitation" (al-Qur'an).

But to deny that the main Islamic texts, the Koran and the Hadiths, are riddled with hateful, vengeful, contemptuous and distorted views of all other faiths, then Mr. Esmay, as I have recommended previously, should pick up a few (pre-p.c. translation) Korans, and start thumbing this curious little book (shorter than the New Testament). Then delve into the various Hadiths (Bukhari, et al) for some insight intot the type of person Muslims are following (and de facto 'worshipping'... as the cartoon jihad demonstrated... in the figure of "the perfect man" Mohammad).

Maybe then he will doubt the bona fides of his Muslim friends (ironically it is "forbidden for Muslims to have infidels as friends", -or perhaps he missed that quaint Islamic teaching) when they deride a site like this for being "malicious", etc.

The truth is a bitch. And her puppies are starting to spread throughout the web.

They even have teeth... honed on a growing knowledge of Islam.

It is a warlord's "religion", at root, and intends to conquer the world, either through slow infiltration or violent jihad. That's the plan they espouse in their mosques, whether disguised in metaphors ("justice for the oppressed Muslims") or openly, as with Abu "Hook" Hamza.

I oppose this plan, since its success would result in the end of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and human development. Locking us in the 7th century forever. Bowing to the dismal tenets of a murderous military conqueror.

Or does Mr. Espay espouse that?

I just don't see what he wants, other than to make his Muslim 'friends' feel good.

Instead of asking them what they want.

Let him quiz them about the aims of Islam, ultimately.

And the world that would result from their theocratic dominion.

I see a tyrannical "religious" gulag, from Trinidad and Tobago to Tokyo, with mullahs, imams and ayatollahs regulating every aspect of human existence, from the size of the stones useful for killing women who commit adultery to which hand, which animal and which compass point is "unclean".

Personally, I'd rather see all Muslims leave Islam in disgust with its vile dogmas. And stop defending the indefensible, the incredibly superstitious, and the frankly ludicrous ("the shooting stars are missiles used to hit devils with", ad absurdum).

The end of Islam will be a relief for the world, like a Berlin Wall the size of Mt. Everest falling.

I wish all Muslims liberation from submission.

And Allah a nice glass case in an air-conditioned museum, right next to Quetzecoatl, Moloch and Baal.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 28, 2006 12:49 PM

"And Allah a nice glass case in an air-conditioned museum, right next to Quetzecoatl, Moloch and Baal."

Lenin too, PB.

Posted by: Frank

at May 28, 2006 12:57 PM

Ignorant know-it-alls like Dean Esmay make stars like Spencersirius shine all the more brighter.

Keep up the good work Robert and may one day all Muslims see the light.

Posted by: William The Crusader

at May 28, 2006 1:05 PM

Esmay wrote:
Hey Robert! The Bible says not one word anywhere in it about slavery being wrong. Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!

mmmm...the Bible says:

Luke 6:31 "Do to others as you would have them do to you".

Also,

Mark 12:31 "...Love your neighbour as yourself..."

So unless Dean Esmay wants to be a slave, then the Bible actually quite clearly state that slavery is wrong.

/Goes back to sleep

Posted by: Thuunda

at May 28, 2006 1:06 PM

To further refute the spirit of Dean Esmay. I should send him R. Burns documentary New York. One could ask why? I especially like the episodes from 1919-1931; this tells the years of red scare, boom, boom and more boom and then bust of 1929. It shows the magnificent spirit of the non-Muslim. A spirit bursting with creativity, culture and intelect. We are in total sense the descendents of Europe. I also like episode eight which shows the creation of the WTC and follows the building through 911. It shows the endless vitality of man, his strivings and failures. Where is such a society in Islam? Where are such cities? Not Dubai with its nice post-card facade, but the real gritty: The Lincoln Center, the NY Public Library, Jazz, the pulsating diversity and freeman? who somehow manage to avoid killing each other . . . where is this in Islam? Not just the facade, the smiling Bandar, the dhimmi-yes men of the West--the answer is this zest is destroyed by Islam, reducing its peoples in every way. Something about the US and our cities brings out the best in man. We reinvent ourselves. This reinventing occurs within Islam too, but in the wrong direction: kind of like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Perhaps this Dean Esmay or Zogby or whomever would put the blame on colonialist crusaders smashing 'a great civilization.' Bolderdash.

Posted by: biorabbi

at May 28, 2006 1:19 PM

My humble observation on this subject;

I have read many things Robert has written. I have compared that with what little history I have read. I compare what Robert has written with events that are taking place at the present time. Robert, you are correct.

The more people like Mr. Esmay get brave enough to come forward with their entrenched “superior” knowledge, the more I learn from it. All these people think they can approach the subject with a nice smile and soothing twisted words all the while positioning the knife in the back. If he is so intent on doing some good, why don’t he go to the Middle East and go to work on Hamas, - Hizbollah, - PLO, - PFLP-GC - Thug of Iran - etc. etc........There is a lot of good work he could do there.

Robert - Right On.
Esmay - -Idiot

Posted by: THSIMJ

at May 28, 2006 1:20 PM

Let no man deceive himself.If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, Let him become a fool.That he may be wise. ...I see Robert always asking, wanting to learn and teach....I dont get that from other so-called experts....I'll stick to Jihad Watch...

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 1:31 PM

Thuunda-

The argument is a contorted attempt to make some moral equivalency between Islam-Mohammed and Christianity-Christ. I am not a sectarian relgious man, but the whole message of Christ is "turn the other cheek" and the Sermon on the Mount.

Ghandi said that it was reading and rereading Jesus' "Resist not evil. Turn the other cheek" that caused him to persue the road of nonviolence as a force to move mountains in India.

Ghandi said he kept wondering what Jesus meant when he said "Resist not evil. Turn the other cheek" and one morning when he was taking a walk it came to him: he said (and my memeory is pretty close re this) "What Jesus meant is that you must speak the truth and you must show the greatest of bravery. You must speak the truth even if it means taking a blow on the face, even if you must take several blows on the face-and that you must stand your ground, not back-down, and continue to speak the truth and that this was the way to defeat evil."

There is simply no essence-of-teaching comparison between the violence of Mohammad and the teachings and nonviolent behavior of Jesus. That is the truth (and I'll stand my ground on that-LOL.)

Posted by: Frank

at May 28, 2006 1:44 PM

I have yet to see elephants fly. Emsay and his ilk are not still looking, but are absolutely postive they can. Someone told them so.

Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti

at May 28, 2006 1:49 PM

I looked at Esmay's website and find him to be a seriously confused man. He claims to be an atheist, but takes every opportunity to say he doesn't want to be an atheism and to attack atheism. Some could mistake Esmay's ambivalence about atheism for open minded effort at serious thought. Instead, I suspect that it is an emotionally needy form of intellectual masochism.

Intellectual masochism and not "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is what underlies most dhimmi attitudes like Esmay's. To label a set of values as a form of "relativism" implies a well-thought philosophical approach. Instead, we observe the incoherent floundering that characterizes Esmay and other dhimmis. I suspect that the only reason "relativism" is brought up to be attacked by the right-wing has something do with the needs of the Catholic Church to defend its bizarre moral philosophy, especially the Doctrine of the Double Effect. (Ask any friend ignorant about Catholic moral philosophy about the Doctrine the Double Effect and see if they don't think it's crazy.) Charges of relativism have little to do with the statements of the alleged relativists.

Posted by: Pediomelum

at May 28, 2006 1:51 PM

It seems to me that the evil of Christians is in not following the teachings of Jesus and the evil of Muslims is in following the teachings of Mohammad.

Posted by: Frank

at May 28, 2006 2:06 PM

I realize that your reference to slavery and the Bible was only an off hand point to you and not really part of your essay.

It may be a minor point, but the offhand reference to slavery in the Bible bothered me. I am Jewish and can not speak about the Christian viewpoint on the subject. However, in Judaism, the word translated as "slavery" has nothing to do with the slavery in the United States before the Civil War or the slavery being perpetrated nowadays in Sudan. In fact, "Do not Steal" in the ten commandments means "do not kidnap". If a slave runs away from his master, we are forbidden to return him. The way a slave is to be treated is very strictly regulated. The talmud says (paraphrase), "He who purchases a slave has purchased a master". As a result, any discussion using slavery as an analogy has to differentiate the actual "slavery" being discussed.

In fact, anyone who attempted to justify slavery (as carried out before the Civil War or in Sudan) using the Bible only shows his ignorance of the Bible.

Sabba Hillel
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7637/544/640/SabbaHillel.jpg

Posted by: Sabba Hillel

at May 28, 2006 2:26 PM

Dear Robert,

As if I needed to be reminded, once again I am struck by your perspicacity and even moreso by your patience in dealing with such a twisted, irrational, hate-spewer like the Esmay.

Yikes! What illogic! What false analogies! What moral equivocation!

"...some mainstream Christian groups have changed [their view on slavery]..."

How insane is that?

But the point is well-made: Islam is stuck to a dogmatic (and irrational) reading of an absurdly contradictory text and will never be able to correct the potential evils that flow from that fact, contrary to what the Christian church has always done, from day one, through the application to scripture and to the faith of reason and experience.

Happy Memorial Day. It's Open Trackback Sunday at TDO.

D. Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com

Posted by: Dumb Ox

at May 28, 2006 2:31 PM

Hey Robert! The Bible says not one word anywhere in it about slavery being wrong. Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong! Sure you say that some mainstream Christian groups have changed their ways on this, but their Bible and the vast majority of the faith's history do not agree! Prove me wrong, prove me wrong!

Prove him wrong? OK, Dean.

You're wrong. This is not very complicated.

A large, mainstream Christian school rejects slavery outright and without reservation and has done so for years..

No such large, mainstream Islamic school rejects jihad.

Posted by: Powderfinger

at May 28, 2006 2:35 PM

Robert,

Innovation is forbidden in Islam. It is a sin.

You know this. Esmay knows it as well. And this is why your attempts at honest debate with apologist "scholars" like Esmay will never result in an honest response or a fruitful debate. He wants peace at any cost, and the truth is a very, very, minor price to pay for that in the minds of people like him. The moment Esmay acknowledges the truth of the plain point you are making (and which he continues to dance around)--that every mainstream school of Islamic thought acknowledges that violent jihad is a part of koranic and hadith law--he is acknowledging that this can never be changed by any devout Muslim, and that taking the conflict to its conclusion is the only way things will ever be settled between Muslims and the rest of us kuffār. Their law forbids any other solution except our subjugation. Esmay would rather carry on the lie that Islam is a religion of peace, in the hopes that most Muslims will somehow start believing it if it's repeated often enough. He is a fool.

But I'm not just looking critically at Esmay. As I said, you're certainly as well-aware of this fact as Esmay, and, like him, dancing around it with this stuff about respecting any Muslim who acknowledges that violent oppression of nonbelievers is enmeshed in written Islamic law, and then rejects this violence. Since, again, that sort of innovation is forbidden and considered to be one of the worst sins in Islam, I'm sure you know that no devout Muslim can ever do such a thing.

So let's stop this tapdancing and false moderation and get to the point: the conflict of Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations (if you want to attach that word to the former; I hardly think that's appropriate) can play out in only one way: Muslims waging jihad against the rest of us, again and again, whenever they become sufficiently powerful that they think they might be able to beat us. And this will NEVER end as long as Islam exists. Eternal war is built-in to Islamic law, as is injunction against ever changing this fact.

Posted by: Pickle

at May 28, 2006 2:41 PM

I hardly know what to say. I've read and re-read everything Mr. Esmay has to say and all I can conclude is that a village somewhere is missing it's idiot.

Posted by: realwest

at May 28, 2006 3:02 PM

Well, to steal from Dorothy Parker,the affair between Dean Esmay and Dean Esmay will live as one of the prettiest love stories in all literature (only rivalled by Lawrence Auster's white hot passion for Lawrence Auster.)

Posted by: AnneCrockett

at May 28, 2006 3:25 PM

"Spencer's ultimate argument is based on a red herring"

The only red herring Robert Spencer will ever see is if Dean Esmay takes a white herring and spray paints it red.

Posted by: billybob

at May 28, 2006 3:34 PM

Pickle,

I am with you. RS seems to have a problem getting to the point. You may be interested to review an exchange between he and I on a thread from yesterday (May 27) entitled "On assertions without evidence". At this writing, I am the last one to have posted in that exchange.

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 28, 2006 3:35 PM

"I hardly know what to say. I've read and re-read everything Mr. Esmay has to say and all I can conclude is that a village somewhere is missing it's idiot."-rw

Re intellectual firepower-and honesty:

The whole thing is a mis-match. It's like putting Peewee Herman (Esmay) in the ring against Mike Tyson (Robert). After 1 Round Esmay looks like a pizza pie. I think Robert just likes to spar and tune up for the real matches-same with himself (AKA Hugh).

Posted by: Frank

at May 28, 2006 3:43 PM

Frank:

I am not now, nor have ever been, Hugh Fitzgerald.

Neverpayretail:

I think you are missing my point, as well as my methodology. As I told you before, I have no substantive disgreement with Hugh Fitzgerald on that issue. Of that I am 100% certain. If you think you see one, you are misunderstanding either me or him.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 28, 2006 3:48 PM

"Frank: I am not now, nor have ever been, Hugh Fitzgerald."

Robert,

I know that's true for sure. "Himself" (as Irish lads sometime refer to types like Hugh) is a bit puffy in the chest. He's in charge-it's unspoken.

But he does know his stuff, smart man, scholar.

Posted by: Frank

at May 28, 2006 4:06 PM

Robert --

Yes you have been Hugh Fitzgerald.

Posted by: Hugh

at May 28, 2006 4:43 PM

Robert Spencer,

Wow!

"I think you are missing my point, as well as my methodology." This sounds so familiar, just like an Islamist and their apologists claiming the Koran is being quoted out of context, that translations from Arabic to English are inadequate, etc.

"As I told you before, I have no substantive disgreement [sic] with Hugh Fitzgerald on that issue. Of that I am 100% certain." Denial! This is a clear refusal to address the evidence and logic so presented.

"If you think you see one, you are misunderstanding either me or him." Projection! You project the problem onto me! Instead of addressing my logic, you dismiss me in like manner to Islamists and their apologists - it is all just a misunderstanding of the peaceful nature of Islam.

Remarkable! When backed into a corner, prideful human nature is revealed over and over again across the entire spectrum of human activity and all history. Sir, I respect your scholarship, as much as I respect James Madison (author of the Constitution). However, as you refuse to explicitly declare Islam dangerous and violent, Madison refused to declare slavery inconsistent with the principles of freedom on which this country was founded. He was not alone. For seventy years this country was locked in an endless debate over slavery that only allowed its further entrenchment, to where a horrible war had to be fought to end the damn thing.

The same is happening now concerning the threat of Islam. The threat is manifest in Europe NOW. Today we have the same denial, the same refusal to cross that line, to declare Islam dangerous and violent, and REJECT it. Outwardly. Openly. No apology. No regrets. Otherwise, its entrenchment will march on here as it has in Europe.

There is an out. You can Change Your Mind.

Sincerely,
neverpayretail

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 28, 2006 5:08 PM

Neverpayretail:

Sir, I know Hugh Fitzgerald. Hugh Fitzgerald is a friend of mine. When I say that Hugh Fitzgerald and I have no substantive disagreement on this issue, I am telling you something that I know to be true. Your logic may be crystalline, but if it leads to a disagreement between Hugh and me on this issue, it has led you astray -- and no amount of comparing me to an Islamist in response can change that.

Your analogy is faulty: James Madison was pro-slavery. I.e., he did nothing to stop slavery. He may have owned slaves; I don't know. Now, if you think that your analogy applies to me, i.e., I am doing nothing to stop the Islamization and dhimmitude of the West, you simply haven't been paying attention.

I invite you to search the archives here, read the FAQ, read my articles, and read my books. I am not trying to sell you anything. But do that, and then come back and tell me I'm comparable to an Islamist and soft on the spread of Islam in the West and its imminent subjugation. My views are patent and clear.

Anyway, you are under no obligation to read this site if you think I'm pro-jihad. There are plenty of others. Consult the links on the front page.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 28, 2006 5:18 PM

With Islam's built-in programs of deceit and treachery, how can you possibly know for certain that a "moderate" Muslim is truly moderate? Other than their word, how can you know?

Not to mention: "take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors..." (Quran 5:51)

Posted by: Greg

at May 28, 2006 5:19 PM

Slavery and the West

The West is the only civilization in all history that has not only voluntarily given up the practice of slavery, but has also, in the process of that progress, developed a wealth of ethical, legal, political and philosophical tools to deconstruct slavery.

Furthermore, the modern West deconstructed its own slaveholding culture in large part on the basis of the enduring, resilient, evolving, progressive genius of Christianity. Esmay and others like him apparently demand that any ethical belief-system worth its salt be statically valid: this is not how the real world lives and breathes: goodness, in people and in societies, grows and develops over time. The West, beginning as Classical Rome & Greece, continuing for centuries as Christendom, then building upon that in sometimes antagonistic but ultimately mature dialogue as the modern West has done more good for the world than any other civilization in history -- because over time, slowly and painfully, it has become more good than any other civilization in history.

Posted by: Television

at May 28, 2006 5:51 PM

Robert Spencer,

My criticism of your failure to address my argument in no way implies you are pro-jihad. My criticism shows that you use the same avoidance tactics when backed into a corner as the Islamists. Concerning "crystalline" logic leading me astray, if the logic is crystalline, and the evidence clear, it is not I who is in error.

My analogy is not faulty. Madison spoke in such convoluted fashion about slavery that only one thing was obvious - he did not want to talk about it, fearful of the effect on the union he had just worked to establish. Endless debate did ensue in the public sector, with no progress, and slavery did become more entrenched over that time. With Islam we see the same in Europe now.

I do not suggest you are doing nothing to halt the spread of Islam. While you do not speak in convoluted fashion about jihad, you clearly refuse to declare Islam dangerous and violent, and so take the next step - rejection of Islam, as opposed to stuck in endless debate about Islam. You have not been paying attention. My views in this exchange are patent and clear.

As such, the basis for your invitation that I search archives, read FAQ, articles, books, as well as reminding me I am under no obligation to read this site, and consult links, is faulty, requiring no further comment.

Sincerely,
neverpayretail

Posted by: neverpayretail

at May 28, 2006 6:15 PM

A minor and probably redundant note on the Esmay paragraphs quoted above:

"Spencer's ultimate argument is based on a red herring: I (and others) are supposed to point to any mainstream school of Islamic thought that completely rejects holy war (violent jihad). Well, none of them do. So what? I never thought they did.
"Hey Robert! The Bible says not one word anywhere in it about slavery being wrong. Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong! Sure you say that some mainstream Christian groups have changed their ways on this, but their Bible and the vast majority of the faith's history do not agree! Prove me wrong, prove me wrong!"

The first paragraph compares bodies of thought and commentary with Scripture itself. This is an improper comparison and a detour; the second paragraph returns to a comparison of Muslim and Christian bodies of thought and action, which is the proper comparison for his ostensible purpose, to show that Mr. Spencer's "ultimate argument is based on a red herring."

Comment 1: The thing I would be ashamed of if I had written it is the words he puts into his rhetorical opponent's mouth that "some mainstream Christian groups have changed their ways on this." Some? SOME? Please show me a mainstream Christian group today that says that slavery is okay. For extra credit, review the history of abolitionism in the West, noting whether or not abolitionism was connected with and arose from "mainstream Christian groups."

Comment 2: I would not use the slavery example from the Muslim side in a debate like this because the actual history seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) that the main bodies of Christianity worked actively to abolish the pro-slavery positions and actions of the main bodies of Muslims, even into the late 20th century. That is, if we compare the "main schools" on the issue of slavery, the Muslim side comes out as defending slavery against a multi-century anti-slavery campaign from the Christians. A most unflattering comparison, from the Muslim side.

Pilgrim

Posted by: Pilgrim

at May 28, 2006 6:22 PM

profitsbeard

Then delve into the various Hadiths (Bukhari, et al) for some insight intot the type of person Muslims are following (and de facto 'worshipping'... as the cartoon jihad demonstrated... in the figure of "the perfect man" Mohammad).

And that is why we should return to calling them Muhammadans -- Worshipers of Muhammad and maybe Allah

Posted by: dennisw

at May 28, 2006 6:45 PM

As far as xianity, the Bible and slavery, the "slavery" of the OT wasn't based on ethnicity nor on a massive trading of peoples. It was part of the penal system where a victim could impose, within limits, a period of time in which the offender, rendered service. All slaves were to be set free every Jubilee year as well. The slavery then of the US and the Roman Empire was far more expansive in terms of it being applied as part of conquest or narrow in terms of only applying to peoples of African descent only. The New Testament pretty much, through the teaching of Paul, precludes Roman type slavery because all peoples were made in God's image so that an offense against the person was an assault on God. Since Islam has no notion of the Image of God, since the very notion of an "icon of God" is blasphemy and their theology is constructed on strict voluntarism, persons can have at best instrumental rather than intrinsic use.

Moreover, the Theodosian Code, promulgated under Theodosius I in 382, in which he made Christianity the state religion (not Constantine by the way) weakened punishments for offenders bringing it more in line with the Biblical concept of slavery. That is, one couldn't be sentenced to die in the Circus or games but would rather serve in the mines. Not a great advance, but one, nonetheless. Further advances were made under Justinian in the 6th century. Added to this was church law that forbid branding of humans or the keeping of slaves and therefore far more extensive, and far earlier, in its rejection of slavery as practiced under the Romans than the earlier two mentioned codes. The banishment of slaveyr in the western world, in the medieval west and east, then was the product of Christianizing a society, whereas the reintroduction of slavery to the western national powers in the Enlightenment period was by and large the result of the Islamization of North African cultures and their interaction with said western powers.

Posted by: American_Palamite

at May 28, 2006 6:53 PM

" I hope you wont allow yourself to be trapped into wasting your valuable time on this lightweight. "

from a post above.

I agree Robert. Methinks that Esmay will be flattered by the headline "Esmay speaks" and the associated (undeserved IMO) attention his correspondence has created.

Posted by: cathkins

at May 28, 2006 6:54 PM

Retail:

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

Mr Spencer,

I'm a woman who used to embrace and love Islam, at least the version of Islam that I knew. Granted, I always knew Islam was bigoted towards women and believed it to be a patriarchal religion, but I firmly believed in “submission to the merciful and kind Allah”. I thought that just like other religions, Islam needed to reform itself and adjust to 14 centuries of social changes. In the aftermath of 9/11, I was appalled by the reaction of many of my fellow Muslims. While I felt terrible shame at sharing a common religion and ethnicity with the 19 mass murderers, many Muslims I knew, some who have been living in the States for over 25 years, felt glee. Upon a trip to the Gulf, I learnt that some restaurants brought in large projection screens so people could enjoy their meals while watching thousands burn alive in NYC and DC. I was disgusted and started my quest for answers. I wanted to distance myself as much as possible from the terrorists, rather than my religion. It did not take long for me to realize that Prophet Mohamed had two completely different personalities. One I call the Mecca personality where he preached mercy and charity. The second is the Medina personality where he turned into a ruthless tyrant. While I had read the Quran in Arabic many times (Arabic is after all my native language), I never fully understood it until I read the English translation. As you know, the Arabic version borrowed many words from Aramaic and other ancient languages that I did not understand. I started noticing the huge contrast between the violent message of Mohamed and the loving message of Jesus Christ. When I learnt about the Quraiza massacre, the enslavement of the Quraiza females (Mohamed took one as his wife after killing all the males in her family), the murder of Fatima bint Marwan, and how conveniently God sent Mohamed a verse ordering him to marry a woman who was practically his daughter-in-law, I felt disheartened, betrayed and appalled. I, therefore, walked away from this religion and never turned back. When Mr Esmay talk about the moderate Muslims he knows, he needs to be aware of one thing. Muslims who support terrorism –even if they may never carry it themselves – know how to play what I call the “Arafat” game very well. They say one thing to a westerner and another to a fellow Arab. On 9/11, as we stood watching the Pentagon on fire from my office window, a Palestinian-American colleague of mine, gave me a nudge and said in Arabic with a smile on his face “It was about time”. This is after parading his sorrow for all other American office workers to see. This gentleman had been living in the US for 30 freaking years. I had only been a resident for 3 years then and was not even an American citizen yet. Mr Esmay is right that not all Muslims are terrorists. My family would never hurt a fly. Nevertheless, they are incapable of any scrutiny of Islam. They firmly believe that 9/11 is what else – a Jewish conspiracy. This refusal of Muslims to criticize their religion is the reason it cannot be reformed. That, and Prophet Mohamed’s declaration that the Quran applies to all times and cannot be changed (which as an Arabic speaker, I beg to differ with). For people like me, the truth comes at a cost. You are ostracized and doomed to a lonely existence, away from your own. If you decide to speak, they ask for your head on a platter. So you stay silent, try to listen to their endless conspiracy theories without screaming, thank God for your American passport and for the great and unique country of America.

Mr Spencer, I know you are a beacon of truth Please keep enlightening us. Mr Esmay ought to take a queue from you. His actions can only hamper efforts towards reforming Islam, and marginalize people in my position.

Thank you.

Mishka

Posted by: Mishka

at May 28, 2006 7:51 PM

I was just reading a chapter in Leaving Islam that made think of this post.........Later I realized that this prejudice and hatred Muslims harbor in their hearts against almost all non-muslims is not the result of any misinterpretation of the teachings of the koran but because the koran teaches hate and prejudice. There are many verses in the koran that call believers to hate nonbelievers, to fight them, to call them najis, to subdue and humiliate them, to chop off their heads and other limbs, to crucify them kill them wherever they find them. ALI SINS --Leaving Islam.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 7:58 PM

sorry typo..ALI SINA

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 7:58 PM

Dean boy needs to learn how to use frames. His site is unreadable.

Posted by: Jaynie59

at May 28, 2006 8:05 PM

Mishka,

Wow! Thank you for that powerful comment. And thank you for becoming an American.

Posted by: del

at May 28, 2006 8:19 PM

That's an excellent comment, Mishka. I wonder how many Muslims have had the information and freedom to reexamine their religion as you have? I bet plenty. But I wonder how many of them have been able to talk about it? Not many, I bet, since that can get your throat cut in many parts of the world.

The logical fallacy in what Esmay says is fairly subtle, Robert. You asked for the identification of any mainstream school of Islamic thought that completely rejects violent jihad; he responds by asking where the Bible rejects slavery.

If Esmay wanted to stay on the topic, he would have asked for the identification of any mainstream school of Christian thought that rejects slavery, the answer to which is "All of them,'" though this would have been a lousy way for Esmay to argue his point, so I can understand why he needed to change the subject.

Posted by: Pavel

at May 28, 2006 8:35 PM

And now that I've gone back and read Esmay's actual post, rather than the small excerpt quoted above, I see that he goes on to say, after he questions where the Bible condemns slavery,

Would you consider that statement to be tendentious? Pernicious? Mean-spirited? Well, you should, because it would be, because while Christianity does have a long and sorry history of embracing slavery, and the Bible does indeed fail to condemn slavery, in recent centuries Christians have been instrumental in ending the practice, and Christians are still fighting it, and they are to be applauded for it.

In other words, in the famous words of Emily Litella, "never mind." It's a lot more reasonable in context.

Posted by: Pavel

at May 28, 2006 8:44 PM

If in Robert's article above one follows the link to the site statistics for Jihad Watch and Esmay, and if one assumes there are 500 million internet users in the world on any given day, one gets the following numbers of visitors to Esmay's and JihadWatch:

Average daily number of visitors for the last 3 months:

Jihadwatch: 48,500 visitors per day
Esmay: 12,500 visitors per day

So Esmay seems to have royally put his foot in it by his false brag that he gets more traffic than Jihad Watch. Over the last three months Jihad Watch received four times the number of visitors.

Posted by: traeh

at May 28, 2006 9:00 PM

Mishka You are a voice of reason...if more had reason instead of bloodlust...We wouldn't be here now.We would be enjoying our family's and watching a sunset....Thank you..

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 9:47 PM

Sheik says:
"Last night I went to the carnival in Port Douglas. I saw hundreds of young, scantily clad women have fun and enjoy themselves. Later on I took a stroll around town, watching young, happy couples walking home, laughing, having fun.

"Suddenly, it occurred to me that we have no inbuilt resistance to Muhammedan infiltration. Our people are totally unprepared and far too naive to deal with cunning and deceit, and the evil of Islam.

We will collapse like the Incas when the Conquistadors invaded...

So by not talking about it, by trying to dodge the issues, the problem will go away? Don't think so..."
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 28, 2006 08:42 AM

Great point, sheik. I've been thinking the same sorts of things lately. People are so preoccupied by amusements (not to mention important stuff like work, family, etc.) that they just aren't mentally and physically prepared for what is, gradually, hitting us and changing our societies. It requires a certain amount of interest and investment of time to figure out that there's more behind this than a small handful of radical terrorists, but all the information is right there in the opne if people want to look for it. We should have already a comprehensive strategy implemented, but for the most part we are still at the stage of trying to wake people up. But I guess that's always how it's been--'some must watch while some must sleep' (Shakespeare).

Posted by: Archimedes

at May 28, 2006 9:58 PM

Archimedes you are wise....I told my sister n law about Islam and gave her a list of websites....and books to read...She said I want to be happy and I dont want to talk about this stuff.....me too......But my eyes are open.....maybe being asleep is less painful.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 28, 2006 10:03 PM

Esmay is wrong to say that Christianity has a long track record of "embracing" slavery. Christianity TOLERATED slavery, but that is quite different from tacitly endorsing and promoting it.

In fact, several instances within the Bible suggest that if anything, slavery was something on the way out from the moment that Christ said that his followers should "love one another, as I have loved you." And additionally, when Christ said that his Holy Spirit would descend when he ascended, and that the Spirit of Truth, would "lead you unto all truth." That line where he stated that His Spirit would descend, would guide the Church, would watch over her, and preserve her from doctrinal error, and moreover, LEAD the Church towards all truth, contained within it, from its inception, ab initiio, the possibility of doctrinal development. WHICH THE GREAT CARDINAL NEWMAN wrote about, in his seminal essay "ON DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE."

Islam by contrast, has within it, no feature that allows for doctrinal development, nor a history not scholastic tradition, that affords such development. WHICH THE POPE, Benedict XVI, recently observed.

The Koran, the recitation IS, it is not the inspired word of anything or anyone. It is UNCREATED. Now if you're a muslim, the possibility of the recitation being faulty, being insufficeint, nor having within it the answer to all future possibilities, is simply blasphemous, absolutely blasphemous.

I don't know why Esmay, Ms. Kusanagi and so many others have trouble grasping that. Especially when a theological expert such as Josef Ratzinger articulated the problems with islamic doctrinal development so precisely.

I mean Esamy, read up boy.

Posted by: Dan

at May 28, 2006 10:28 PM

As for Christianity and slavery, notice this:

"Both slave and free must equally philosophize, whether male or female in sex...whether barbarian, Greek, slave, whether an old man, or a boy, or a woman...And we must admit that the same nature exists in every race, and the same virtue." These remarks by [Christian theologian] Clement of Alexandria (c.200) cannot be confused with the view of most educated citizens of the Roman Empire in the third century. The sentiments they express would have been equally unusual, or more so, in the other great civilizations of the time: the various empires stretching across Asia, as well as those in the Americas and in Africa south of the Sahara.

-- from page 2 of Christianity on Trial, by Vincent Carroll & David Shiflett

One need not believe in Christ to understand that the early Christians and the New Testament brought an unprecedented consciousness of human equality into history, along with a new liberty, both of those values implicit and sometimes explicit in the message of universal love. Human equality and liberty were part of the message in Christ's washing of the diciples' feet, as well as in his separation of the things of Caesar from the things of God, and in much else he is reputed to have done.

The movement for the end of slavery in the world was started by Christians in Great Britain, who used the Gospels and emphasized Christian beliefs to make the case against slavery. As far as I know, no comparable and comparably effective anti-slavery movement has happened in any other culture in the world, though slavery had been practiced virtually everywhere at almost all times until the Christian abolitionists came along. The rest of the world slowly followed the Christian, and Western, lead on this issue.

Slavery even now still exists in parts of the Islamic world. Muhammed considered it a good deed to free one's slaves, but according to mainstream Muslim scholarly tradition, he owned slaves and concubines himself, and supported among his followers the taking of slaves as booty in war. Nothing like that can be said for the central figure of the Gospels.

More people need to study Islam more closely, reading Qur'an and Hadith, in order to grasp that a major religion like Islam can be a cult in the negative sense, with a hatred of spiritual freedom, and global totalitarian plans, even though many Muslims are benign and good people who have no such plans and who are not particularly aware of the tenets of their own cult.

Posted by: traeh

at May 28, 2006 10:29 PM

Mishka - thanks for that post. It was fascinating and moving.

Former Muslims are very powerful in waking people up in the best way. I hope you will continue to do whatever you can, but keep safe.

Posted by: traeh

at May 28, 2006 10:38 PM

Over at Ali Sina's faith freedom anti-Islam site you can sign up to buy his book when it comes out.

Sina is a former Muslim from Iran who pulls no punches and is brilliant. He teamed up once with Robert Spencer to debate two Muslims on Frontpagemagazine.com. Robert was his brilliant and steady self; Sina was dazzling. The two Muslim debaters never knew what hit them.

Signing up for Sina's book will help get it published at a major publishing house.

Posted by: traeh

at May 28, 2006 10:53 PM

Robert,
It seems like you are having a difficult time getting through to Dean Esmay. Perhaps you could communicate with him more effectively if you employed some of his own techniques:

Over dramatizing,
Over simplifying,
Glossing over and dismissive of valid points
Shrill name calling
Provably Inaccurate statements
Overall hysterical juvenile tone

Esmay apparently, doesn't "get" logical, factual, verified, articulate, concise, reasoned prose, such as you provide.

Posted by: Xero G

at May 28, 2006 10:55 PM

Mishka-

Welcome.

Very moved by your tribulation.

Write your story down, from 9/11 on.

Your words are powerful and your insight is important and needs to be heard. It would make a valuable book.

(If you do, try contacting Regnery publishers once you have an serious outline and at least the first chapter -20 pages or so should do. They have contracted Mr. Spencer's next book on the Muslim "prophet", to be called: "THE TRUTH ABOUT MUHAMMAD", and might be interested in your intimate side of this world-historical conflict.)

People in the West need more critical viewpoints, like yours, about the hidden face behind the "moderate" veil of Islam.

Freedom is more frightening than the cocoon of slavery, but it is the only place the heart can open.

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth."

-George Washington.

All the best.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 28, 2006 11:11 PM

I have written an essay on sophistry and moral equivalence which is sufficiently demonstrated by Dean.

http://www.james-everest.org/freedom/

Interesting how liberals are always so proud.

Posted by: james_everest

at May 29, 2006 12:32 AM

While I had read the Quran in Arabic many times (Arabic is after all my native language), I never fully understood it until I read the English translation. Posted by Mishka

Thanks for sharing your story with us. I think the American people would be astounded at the number of loyal, patriotic, muslim "Americans" who celebrated 9-11 with flagrant exuberance, as well as the duplicitous deceivers who celebrated behind closed doors, while feigning shock and sorrow in public. The Islamic apologists and useful idiots have argued here that the muslim "community" was as deeply shocked and saddened by 9-11 as all other Americans, and they have excoriated anyone who claims otherwise.

Many Islamic scholars, apologists, appeasers, and useful idiots have insisted that to understand Islam, one must speak Arabic. Yet you, an Arabic speaker, were enlightened by an English translation. I find this very interesting.

Posted by: Susanp

at May 29, 2006 1:03 AM

Esmay has admitted in his ugly way that Islam is not reformable, and Jihad will always be with us. I will always maintain that Christianity is, in fact, reformed Judaism. Christ taught us a lot of things, the most important of which was the separation of the spitirual from the physical. Spiritual cleanliness and physical cleanliness are not the same thing. My Christian God does not care which hand I eat with. He certainly doesn't care whether or not I have had a bath before I go to Church.

Even if an Islamic messiah were to arrive and proclaim a "new" Islam, there would be those who would not follow. It would create another division in an already fragmented, contentious religion. If this "new" Islam attracted 500 million followers, there would still be 750 million Mohammedans to to continue with the killing, torture, rape, bombings, burnings, beheadings, ad mauseum.

Posted by: Pelayo

at May 29, 2006 1:06 AM

I am an unabashed and unashamed atheist, a social liberal, that is sometimes conservative (depends on the issue) and sometimes Leftist and sometimes Rightist (again depending on issues, I refuse to allow some self appointed demigogue(s) define me and my agenda, which is simple.. maximum choice, liberty and freedom for all, but I can not and will not bestow upon others that which they will not bestow upon me.. none of that turn the other cheek and offer my neck to the scimitar crap.

That said and done Robert is on the side of the angels (where there angels in deed), and has clearly proven that Esmay and his ilk cherry pick and are guilty of what he (they) accuse Robert of (it's called projection folks).. erecting strawmen and logical fallacies, and Esmay delightfully impaled himself on the horn of his own dilemna as Robert so graciously proved. Mot only did Esmay fail to respond to Roberts challenge to wit: "He did not respond to my request to demonstrate that mainstream Islamic teaching is peaceful and tolerant, which was his initial objection to my work -" he admitted that it was impossible to find a mainstream school of Islam that rejects violent Jihad.

I go further, there is no school, scholar or Imam who will or can reject Jihad be it violent or non violent, for to do so would be apostasy and of all of the sins in Islam, apostasy (irtidad) is the worse and Muhammad clearly said that fitnah is worse than slaughter, translation subjecting Islam to trial, humiliation and examination is more horrible than slaughtering those that would subject Islam to trial, examination and humiliation (discreditation).

Esmay is not a liberal, he is, in my humble estimation a troll, a self righteous, obfuscating troll who abhors and hates the very culture that has nourished him and has provided him the means and wealth by which to attack and destroy that culture.

In other words a nihilist, in the same camp as other End Times nihilists, be they a Trotskyite, a Leninist, a Hitlerite, a Stalinist, an Ahmadinejad or a Tim La Haye. Come to think of it Islam is a nihilistic ideology, if for no other reason than it annhilates the individual, and suffocates the human spirit and unique identity.

Posted by: Nariz

at May 29, 2006 1:27 AM

My God, Mishka,

I am very moved by your story. By your abundant courage. You live in courage and truth. How it must sour life to live in silent fear, pretending to agree, as many “Muslims” like yourself must do to survive.

Are there support groups for doubting Muslims? And then for ex-Muslims, to help them “come out” to their family who consider it blasphemy, etc. So many people born into Islam must feel like you did, but I bet they have no one they can share it with. You, of course, could provide the understanding these sufferers need. Ali Sina is trying to provide that also. You could be a huge asset to the minority of Muslims whose innate sense of ethics and logic cause them to reject Islam (as Islam falls very short in these two areas).

By making your story highly available, as someone above suggested, you could change lives. In fact, I think such a story of transformative realization would be a powerful movie subject. It has a personal, spiritual, political angles to it. And the interpersonal relationships angle, too. A story of struggle for a righteous cause, and about the decision to be true to yourself.

I like to imagine that your realization about Islam has a mass collective tipping point. Meaning that with enough visibility, more and more Muslim people would recognize your truth in their own experience. And soon it would be a like a cascade! Dominos of Muslims leaving Islam (or at least determining to reform it, make it tolerant, drop jihad, etc. – I know it’s “immutable,” but in America, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.”).

Thank you for the inspiring story, Mishka.

Posted by: WestwardHo

at May 29, 2006 1:48 AM

#Susanp

Thank you for your kind words.
The verses in the Quran are not in chronological order, but rather ordered by length, starting with the longest verses. What I did not know at the time was that if you arrange them in chronological order, the result is disturbing. The earlier verses, which are quite similar to the Christian message of love and forgiveness, are followed by the jihadi ones that preach violence and intolerance. As a Muslim, I focused on the good verses and believed the violent ones to apply only to the times of Jihad, when Mohamed and his followers were fighting for their life and the survival of their religion. When I realized that, according to Islam, the earlier verses are nullified by the latest ones, I felt that I was punched in the stomach. Nevertheless, I don't want you to believe that all Muslims believe in that message of violence. Most of them don't realize it. My sisters for example keep shaking their head every time they hear of an execution in Iraq stating that Prophet Mohamed has banned cutting trees, let alone hurting people. It is very hard for people to wake up and realize that the entire foundation of their faith is a disgusting swamp of lies. It was extremely hard for me to come to terms with this. I don't know why after 9/11 I felt the need to face the truth regardless of how bad it was, and others would rather hold on to what they know. I get verbally assaulted whenever I convey to other Arabs (Americans or otherwise) that I am an American first and foremost and love the US dearly. I was accused of being brainwashed and a traitor. My family is convinced that I am going straight to hell for my blasphemy. I think it is very important that people like Robert Spencer, Bernard Lewis, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and my personal hero Dr Wafa Sultan continue fighting for us. Dr Wafa Sultan in particular did the unthinkable. She walked into the lion's den (Al Jazeera and its millions of radical viewers) and debated him with eloquence and grace. This is actually one time I would say I wish you guys spoke Arabic, because the English translation did not do her justice.

Posted by: Mishka

at May 29, 2006 1:49 AM

# Profitsbeard

Thank you for your kind words, but I think you give me way too much credit. I neither have the eloquence nor the writing skills of Mr Spencer to be able to write a book (I'm still looking for a way to make a contribution to this great country, I still don't know how). When I listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Dr Wafa Sultan debate the issue, I realize how small I am, compared to these two amazing women. I firmly believe that Islam will eventually implode upon itself. I think the revolution will come from within, once Muslim women achieve financial independence. Being able to provide for myself allowed me to break many social chains that Arab society put on its female members. This is why Muslim men are terrified of women becoming more independent. As you recall, one of the first rules the Taliban put in place was prohibiting women from working. The majority of Arab men feel very threatened and resentful towards independent women. Their immediate reaction is to call them "whores", even if they were the very incarnation of piety. Sadly the capitulation of the mainstream media in both the US and Europe to the Danish cartoons have set us back 100 years I think. Appeasing jihadists will only empower them to bully us more. You'd think this would have been one of the most important lessons drawn from WW2, but alas, people are quick to forget.

Posted by: Mishka

at May 29, 2006 2:07 AM

Mishka, you may not feel equal to Dr. Sultan, but you are not small! I felt so much admiration reading your posts. It takes a lot of courage to seek the truth and then embrace it, especially when family and friends do not support your doing so, and when the culture that you are rejecting is violent against dissenters. G-d bless you, truly. And I agree, Esmay should take his cue from Robert!

Batyahgirl

Posted by: batyahgirl

at May 29, 2006 2:26 AM

Mishka,

"(I'm still looking for a way to make a contribution to this great country, I still don't know how)"

I found one way, in another of your posts:

"This is actually one time I would say I wish you guys spoke Arabic, because the English translation did not do her [Wafa Sultan] justice."

You could try to translate the transcripts with this in mind (and also provide the complete transcript, as I have read that the MEMRI translation was quite incomplete). With your background and the changes in mind and heart and society you are going through, you could be an excellent translator for such a subject.

It's just a suggestion, one for which I, and perhaps many others, would be enormously grateful.

Posted by: Television

at May 29, 2006 2:53 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. On the "On assertions without evidence" thread you posted this same response, but added, "I 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 at the end of a leash, the enemy knows 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 3:40 AM

Miska,
Your story deserves to be told again and again, but here at JW you are in essence, preaching