| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A few weeks ago I sat down with Brian Lamb of C-Span for an interview. That interview will run next Sunday at 8 and 11PM. In the meantime, however, C-Span showed parts of what I said to Akbar Ahmed, the Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, and got his reactions. The full transcript of what Ahmed said is here, and you can watch the show featuring him here. C-Span gave me no opportunity to reply to Dr. Ahmed or to interact with him at all; so I will do so here now.
ROBERT SPENCER, FOUNDER, JIHAD WATCH: Islam is the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the homogeneity of the Islamic social order over the world. Now, these things are objectively verifiable facts. Anyone can look at the Koran. Anyone can look at the Muslim sources, the Muslim history, Muslim legal texts and so on and find that to be true.(END VIDEOTAPE)
LAMB: Reaction.
AHMED: My reaction of Robert is that he’s right. Islam does have a very aggressive almost attitude to spreading the word.
At the same time, where does Islam get this from? I pointed out that Islam is very conscious of its Judeo-Christian legacy. This is part of the Judeo-Christian legacy. So, the moment you make this statement about Islam you can make exactly the same statement about Judaism and Christianity. If you read the bible and read versus about smiting and smite so and so and smite so and so, you realize how in fact aggressive the bible can be. That is precisely why we need to go to the spirit of the bible. When we talk of Jesus as the embodiment, as we do as Muslims who revere and love Jesus, as the embodiment of love and compassion and piety and humility, it is the spirit we take of the book, not the literal translation.
Actually, as I have pointed out many, many times, when you make that statement about Islam you cannot make the same statement about Judaism and Christianity. Neither of the latter have anything like the doctrine of jihad among their teachings. Neither have in their Scriptures any open-ended and universal command to all believers to make war against and subjugate all unbelievers, a la Qur'an 9:29. His opposition of the "spirit" of the Bible, as embodied by Jesus, to the "literal translation" is attempting to create an antinomy that doesn't exist -- he is giving the impression that Jesus exists in the Bible amid a welter of bellicosity, and that simply isn't true. In any case, Jesus in his own teachings sets the pattern for how Christians understand Old Testament passages, and mitigates many -- "an eye for an eye" becomes "turn the other cheek," etc. Of course, in neither Judaism nor Christianity is there any violent movement today pointing to Biblical texts as its justification. But there is in Islam. So to equate all three as equally given to this sort of thing, as Dr. Ahmed does, is simply to sidestep the real question: why do such movements exist today in Islam but not in the other two "Abrahamic" traditions?
So, Robert in that sense is pointing out something which on one level is literally true but on another level it contains a deeper truth, which is what we need to be looking at, that you need to see it in the context of the Abrahamic tradition.LAMB: Have you seen this documentary?
AHMED: I haven’t seen this documentary, but I know the work of Dr. Spencer and I know a lot of these arguments because I’ve been a scholar of Islam for the last several decades. So, I’m very aware with all my friends and colleagues. And we interact with them. We debate. We discuss....
I'd be very happy to discuss these matters and/or debate with Dr. Ahmed.
SPENCER: The Jewish and Christian traditions have developed interpretative methods whereby they blunt the force of some of the more uncomfortable passages of the bible so that nobody reads in the psalms where it says, ”Blessed is the one who takes your babies and strikes them against the rock,” and thinks we should go out and bash babies’ heads in. This has never been something that Jews – even the most extreme Jewish and Christian groups have ever relied on that kind of biblical literalism in regard to those kinds of passage.In Islam, on the other hand, the literalist tradition is paramount. And the understanding that these things are indeed marching orders for all believers is paramount so that also there’s a fundamental difference in the fact that there is an open ended and universal mandate to commit to – to commit violence, to wage war against nonbelievers for believers in the Koran. There is no such universal and open ended mandate to commit violence in the scriptures – in the Christian or Jewish scriptures.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LAMB: Is he right?
AHMED: He’s not right again, Brian. Let me urge all your viewers to read the work of Rumi. He says all Muslims are mandated to go out and kill and be violent and so on. We’ve established that’s part of the Abrahamic tradition. Each tradition has a counterpoint. The counterpoint in Islam is the mystic Sufi tradition. Rumi is an example. Rumi is today in the United States the number one best selling poet in the United States of America. You’ll be surprised at this, but he is. Go to any book shop and they’ll confirm this.
Who is Rumi? Thirteenth century mystic Muslim poet talking of love and compassion. I go to the synagogue. I go to the church. I go to the mosque. I see the same spirit and the same altar. This is Islam. Rumi’s inspiration, Brian, to Koran. So, rich Koran is Rumi reading. Rich Koran is Dr. Spencer reading.
So, there is a debate within Islam itself and it has been debated for centuries. I pointed out earlier that what we are seeing is because of globalization, because of the forces around us that the debate’s shifting away from Rumi’s interpretation or my interpretation of inclusivity to a more exclusivist tendency. That is what we need to be concerned with, because if we don’t we’re in danger of producing a monolith of Islam because a monolith does not exist.
Even the example of Jinnah – let Mr. Spencer read the speeches of Jinnah or the actions – interpret the actions of Jinnah in the ’30s and ’40s. This is a liberal humanist interpretation of modern Islam. Read the works of Allama Iqbal, who inspired Jinnah, the greatest poet of South Asia, the great poet philosopher. He wrote a poem for Ramma, the Hindu god. That is how liberal and how open and inclusivist Iqbal is. Iqbal is the inspiration for the creation of Pakistan.
So, you have a debate within Islam itself. What you are seeing is that debate reaching a climax....
Again, Dr. Ahmed sidesteps the question. The clip Lamb played of me was about the violent verses of the Qur'an and their interpretation. In response, Dr. Ahmed ignores this except to say again that Judaism and Christianity are the same as Islam. Then he starts talking about Muslim poets and humanists. Great. Did they offer an alternative understanding of the Qur'an and Islam that mitigated the violent passages and taught on Islamic grounds that Muslims should live as equals with unbelievers without ever attempting to impose Sharia? They did not -- but Ahmed doesn't tell us this.
Why does this matter? Because he goes on to say that the imams who support suicide bombing and the like are literalists, but when he goes into a mosque, he talks about Rumi and Jinnah. That's just wonderful, but he is always going to face an uphill battle from Muslims who believe that the Qur'an is the word of Allah and thus outweighs Rumi and Jinnah. And he has not explained what he would do about that.
SPENCER: There’s a prevailing fog of political correctness over the land that has the power to cloud men’s minds and makes them not see what’s obvious. And this – these issues are – speaking honestly about these issues, the American Muslim advocacy groups have been very skillful in portraying anyone who speaks honestly about these issues as being some kind of a hate monger.(END VIDEOTAPE)
AHMED: You know, Brian, in America, the United States, the debate does get a bit caught up in these advocacy groups. And I try to avoid both Muslim and non-Muslim because, to me, the issue really is a bigger one. It isn’t just a question of Muslims surviving or non-Muslims surviving.
Of course it isn't, and I didn't say it was.
We are living on a planet which is overpopulated. Poverty is rampant in parts of Africa, Asia. It’s a very serious situation, the starvation, thousands facing starvation. Global warming is a reality. Religious conflict, ethnic conflict is taking lives across the world. You see what’s happening in the Middle East, Israel feeling threatened, the Arabs feeling threatened, both locked up in a cycle of violence.We really have to begin to look at each other not in terms of advocacy, not in terms of scoring points, not in terms of tit for tat. I would invite distinguished scholars like Dr. Spencer to begin this process, the scholars looking at Islam, rather than just creating a scare about Islam. Let them help Muslims and non-Muslims discover or rediscover the traditions of compassion, of dialogue, of inclusivity within Islam itself. It is a very, very rich legacy.
As I said, I'd be happy to debate Dr. Ahmed, but the real task he faces is not to convince me that there are "traditions of compassion, of dialogue, of inclusivity within Islam itself." The real task he faces is to convince the mujahedin. If I get together with him and have a lively discussion about Rumi's poetry, it will not accomplish this.
Remember, Islam gave you a civilization 1,000 years ago with scholars and writers and astrologers and poets, which was unique at that time of the world. It was right at the cutting edge, the most advanced civilizations of the world. Why can’t Muslims again participate on this? Why must Muslims be known as terrorists and extremists in the American mind? This is a great challenge for Muslims....
Leaving aside the question of whether that great civilization was really so great, Muslims today are known as terrorists and extremists because that is what they have been all too often. I'm glad he says that "this is a great challenge for Muslims," because that is exactly what it is -- although most Muslims would say it is a great challenge for unbelievers, and charge that it is up to us to think Islam is benign despite the ever-increasing amount of evidence to the contrary.
AHMED: Yes. Yes. Again, Brian, the Koran is – as a great scholar of Islam who converted from Christianity to Islam wrote about it, it’s like an ocean. The deeper you go into it the deeper you learn its mysteries. It is really – like all the great religious texts, the bible or the Judaic texts, there is so much for us as human beings to become aware of to spiritually uplift ourselves. And the Koran is like that.You pointed out that every chapter starts with, ”In the name of God, the compassionate, the beneficence and the merciful.” Now, this comes from the fact that God in Islam is known by 99 names or attributes. And of these 99 two, that is Rahman and Rahim, beneficence and mercy, compassion, mercy, are the two that are most repeated throughout the day by Muslims all over the world. So, even as we speak Muslims will be saying this one loud, Rahman and Rahim, in the name of God, the beneficence and the merciful.
So, Islam is emphasizing, encouraging us to emphasize compassion and mercy round the clock.
Actually, one sura does not begin with "in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful." This is sura 9, which commands that Muslims wage war against Jews and Christians (9:29).
I ask myself the question you asked a few minutes ago about these young men. If young men get on a plane to blow themselves up where is the mercy and compassion? They’re missing something. It is my job as a Muslim scholar to make sure that they’re aware what they’re missing and what’s going wrong in their thinking. If I can’t do it, Brian, I have failed. That is why, for me, this dialogue is like an obsession. It’s like something that I must do because at this critical time in the post 9-11 world we’re living in I believe every Muslim scholar must be out there interacting with both the non-Muslims like we are doing but with Muslims, because if we don’t do it we will have failed our community and eventually the world community.
Right.
LAMB: Robert Spencer talks about this chapter. Let’s watch.(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPENCER: It is generally understood by Islamic theologians as meaning that this is because this is not a chapter of compassion or mercy. This is a chapter of warfare. And it is the – generally understood to abrogate the – any treaty of peace or any accord that Muslims had with non-believers as dictated by any other part of the book that now with this at the last, the last – the Koran’s last word on Jihad – and, again, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of traditional and mainstream Islamic theologians and Koranic commentators such as Ibn Kathir and others. They say that this is meaning that the posture of Muslims toward non-Muslims forever after throughout history is to be one of warfare in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law of sharia and that that warfare is certainly carried out by various different means. And it doesn’t mean that every Muslim is going to be trying to kill every other non-Muslim at all times. But the overall responsibility of the umma, the Muslim community worldwide, is to continue to pursue this war insofar as it is possible in every age in order ultimately to Islamize the world.
I apologize for being incoherent. I meant to say that mainstream Muslim theologians have understood sura 9, with its exhortations to warfare, to abrogate every peace treaty in the Qur'an between believers and unbelievers.
AHMED: Chapters were written, Brian, over a period of time, very soon after the prophet but over a period of time. So, there was a debate should they be the Meccan chapters first, then the Medina chapters because, as revelations came they were divided according to were they being received in Mecca or Medina. Or should they be longer and shorter and so on.So, it isn’t a question of this chapter abrogating an earlier chapter because, again, you have those whole logic and illogic and gods mind. You cannot have God constantly changing his mind.
Ahmed may have forgotten about Qur'an 2:106: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"
At the same time we are told – and we’re all scholars, and Robert Spencer’s pointing out Muslim scholars – that these chapters are coming at a certain time of history. There’s a situation which is specific to immediate moment in time. There’s a battle. There’s a peace treaty being formed. There’s a situation of an event in the prophet’s life. And then there are other chapters which are talking of principles of society.So, they’re two quite distinct things happening here. I interpret it like this. When there’s a specific chapter talking about Muslims who are not very good Muslims or making peace with the Jews or fighting with the Jews or other Christians are fighting with Muslims and making peace with them, those are specific to a certain situation taking place then at time – in that particular time.
Sure, but here again, I said that mainstream Muslim theologians believe that this chapter abrogates other Qur'anic passages. In response, he explains that certain passages address particular circumstances. This doesn't address the question.
And then there are chapters with general principles – how should we be treating humanity, how should we be treating Jews and Christians, the people of the book how should we be looking at Jesus. There’s an entire chapter, for example, on Mary, the mother of Jesus. She’s treated with such reverence in the Koran. There are mentions of Jesus more than the prophet himself in the Koran. And the prophet is on record. The famous saying of his that there is no one closer to Jesus than I am in reverence and love.So, all that is the spirit, the philosophy of the Koran that I would get in reading it. If I read it critically and scholarly in a scholarly fashion that this chapter relates more to what’s happening on the ground and maybe or maybe not. It doesn’t make much sense to me. There’s a tribal war going on. There’s some kind of treaty. There’s some kind of abrogation or fight between groups. And then there’s a chapter which relates to me in the twenty-first century. It gives me certain principles on how I am to live my life now in the twenty-first century. This is where Muslims need to be using their critical faculties at looking at the Koran.
Great. How will he convince the mujahedin that sura 9 "doesn't make much sense" for the modern world?
LAMB: Again, you’re saying that you tend to look at the positive side of this and you have the imams and the mosques in London that undoubtedly if that’s true pumped up all these kids to go out and kill themselves.AHMED: Brian, again, it’s a debate. It’s a discussion. And all the imams are not like this. I can give you many examples here in the United States. My friend Imam Magid who heads the Dulles Muslim Center, the most important center here in Washington D.C. – in fact, the ”Time Magazine” had a story on him calling him the American Imam or something very popular, very obane (ph), very relaxed, very – reaching out to Jews and Christians involved with me in this Abrahamic dialogue.
His interpretation would be exactly like mine, which is the broader, the more philosophic, the reaching out to people. So, again, it is a debate within the faiths. Dr. Spencer may be saying one thing. Other Christian scholars of Islam may be saying completely the opposite. These are all parts of our own opinions being given on the basis of our study, on the basis of our own research, and is part of the debate.
Sure. Everybody has lots of opinions. But I don't actually do anything but report on the understanding of Islam forwarded by the mujahedin. He can represent this as my opinion all he wants, but it is the mujahedin who are flying planes into buildings because of them, and as he himself says above, it is them he must convinces of the error of these "opinions."
LAMB: In this chapter – I’ll just read you a couple sentences and then have you explain it.”And when the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods” – small G with gods – large G – ”wherever ye shall find them and seize them. Besiege them and lay awake for them with every kind of ambush. But if they shall convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious and merciful.”
AHMED: Now, I interpret this – I’ve read that verse and I was very interested in that. So, I’m glad you picked that one out.
What is God saying? Again, let’s step back a little bit. This is the Abrahamic God, first point, very possessive, very jealous about only me and don’t look at idols, don’t look at – remember, Abraham actually smashes idols made by his own father. He sets the mold for us. And we are very Abrahamic in our view as Muslims.
So, the first is the possessiveness, the exclusivity. And for this, my Hindu friends, for example, or my Buddhist friends always tease me, joke at me and say, ”You Abrahamic people tend to be very possessive about your sense of God. Only we are right. The boundaries are very clear.” They tend to be much more flexible, much more fluid, much more relaxed about faith – other people’s faith.
The second is the clause (ph) where you invite them to your dialogue, invite them to your way of looking. And if there’s a possibility of making peace with them, coming to understanding, then that peace is better than war. There are many verses like this which strike me where God says in the Koran ”fight them” and fight them here and fight them – the Jews and the Christians in the middle of war there’s a verse which says, which is very often quoted by my colleagues like Dr. Spencer – fight the Jews, fight the Christians, fight the bad Muslims.
The next verse, Brian, goes on to say, ”But make peace with them because God prefers peace.” So, how would I read it? I would read it like this, that if there is a war situation even then peace has to be preferred. Even then dialogue and understanding trump war and violence....
Another untraditional opinion. I'm glad he holds it. I hope he can convince his coreligionists of it.
SPENCER: The problem that the world faces and the problem that the Muslim communities of the West face as well as the Muslim communities in the Islamic world face is that the terrorists are taking the teachings of the Koran and the teachings of Islamic theology and law that mandate violence and are running with them. And it is very difficult to formulate a case on – solely on Muslim grounds to say that that’s illegitimate. And so, while there are moderate Muslims, the fact that Islam itself is not moderate makes it very difficult for those moderates to establish any kind of large scale anti-terror effort.(END VIDEOTAPE)
AHMED: I don’t agree here, Brian. I’ve just given you the example of Mr. Jinnah, the twentieth century, that when given a choice Muslims – and he said that there are no moderate Muslims and Muslims don’t go along the moderate camp as it were and rather prefer the extremist camp. When given a choice they rally behind a man like Jinnah.
Did you catch that? I said "there are moderate Muslims" and he says of me, "he said that there are no moderate Muslims."
And alas, he leaves unaddressed what I was really saying, which is that while there are moderate Muslims, Islam itself is not moderate.
Now, the key question for us is why in the twenty-first century can’t we have more Muslim leaders in that mold. The Muslim leaders saying, ”All right, we have a problem. Palestinians, we have a problem. Let’s sit down with the Israelis. Let’s sort it out. Negotiations, talking, peace processes. Let’s not blow ourselves up. Let’s not blow ourselves up on campuses or in pizzerias. Let’s not to take these violent acts because they’re getting us nowhere and it’s against the law and it’s immoral.” That’s what Jinnah did. He never went to jail once, never broke the law. He fought within the law and yet he achieved the largest Muslim nation on earth. That is our challenge.We need – it is there, so I don’t agree with Dr. Spencer. It doesn’t exist, for Jinnah is not a political figure. He’s a real figure. I’m giving you a real life example. For Pakistanis he’s like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, all rolled into one, the founding father. He exists. Why can’t we create more Jinnahs in the Muslim world? That is our challenge.
He does not explain, of course, that Jinnah departed from traditional Islam in many ways. He was a moderate Muslim, yes, but he did not base his political philosophy on Islamic grounds.
Your challenge in the United States is to understand what’s happening in the Muslim world because if you don’t and you treat all Muslims as potential terrorists according to Dr. Spencer thesis that there are no moderates, then what you will do is you will push a lot of moderates, a lot of marginal and wavering and swinging people into the extremist camp. And that, Brian, I’m afraid even the sole superpower of the world cannot afford to do. You cannot take on 1.4 billion people where you have such interests as you do in the Middle East and South Asia and Central Asia....
Well, of course, he is now running with his misinterpretation of what I said, but in any case, he is again retailing an argument that will be familiar to Jihad Watch readers: if you say Islam is violent, you will make Muslims become violent. I don't see why this would be true. I just heard Dr. Ahmed say above that Christianity is just as violent as Islam, but that doesn't make me as a Christian any more inclined to violence than I ever was.
SPENCER: Islam is not what you think. Most of the people – you know, I talk to officials all the time. I talk to media types all the time. And they are unanimous or virtually unanimous in their certainty that the terrorists are not true Muslims and that Islam is a religion of peace that they’re twisting.Now, it’s not for me or anyone else to say that they are true Muslims, but there’s no doubt that they are working from broad traditions within Islam. And as long as Muslims like this reviewer refuse to face that instead of take concrete steps to combat it, that’s going to continue to go on. And this is why this question is so urgent.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LAMB: You know, a lot of people were critical of the Islam community in this country for not standing up and really criticizing the terrorists back in 9-11 and ever since then. Will – I know you’ve been active in that, but have they been reticent to stand up?
AHMED: Brian, there was a reticence. In fact, I regret to say this, that even when I started my dialogues with Judeo Pearl, when I went to bruslastic (ph) synagogue just two years after – one year after 9-11 – he invited me – there was a headline in Pakistan in a Pakistani paper which said, ”Akbar Ahmed sole Muslim voice wanting dialogue with the Jews.” I got a lot of very nasty e-mails.
So, I’m aware that we Muslims have to accept the challenge. I would also invite friends and colleagues like Dr. Spencer to also accept the challenge not to create further misunderstanding, not to fuel the fires, because this kind of black-and-white presentation of Islam will confirm in Americans’ minds that Islam is a dangerous terrorist evil religion, and purely on practical terms, not theological, not moral, not historical.
Great. I would like nothing better than to see Ahmed and his friends convince all Muslims that Islam has nothing to do with violence. But again, he will not do this by ignoring or denying the elements of Islam that are giving rise to violence. He must confront them. He has not done so here; instead he has just sidestepped them. A mujahid who happened to see this interview would not be convinced to lay down his arms. And on that score, by Dr. Ahmed's own admission above, he has failed.
On practical terms the United States cannot bomb the whole planet and live by itself. It must engage. It must talk about winning hearts and minds, as President Bush is trying to scatter (ph), use his colleague in the State Department. He’s trying to genuinely reach out through public diplomacy, friendship, dialogue, to begin the process of getting in the majority of Muslims in the debate.Even Bernard Lewis, the great historian at Princeton, a friend and colleague from my Princeton days, he wrote an article just two days ago in the ”Wall Street Journal” this week in which he argued about the 22nd of August being a very dangerous date and so on. But the last paragraph of the article says – that’s the conclusion – that the only solution is the long-term solution of involving and incorporating the majority of the Muslim world into this dialogue. And that is how you marginalize extremism and, therefore, violence.
You cannot do it any other way, Brian, because right now what I am seeing – and I am very worried about this – as a Muslim who’s been advocating dialogue and understanding, sometimes at great cost to myself and to my personal safety, what I am seeing is people like me being further and further marginalized and the men of extremism getting the opportunity to say, ”Here we are. Here’s another documentary like Dr. Spencer’s documentary. It’s anti-Islam. America hates Islam. America’s on the warpath against Islam. And you, Akbar Ahmed, by having dialogue with Brian, with Judeo Pearl and so on, are selling out. You are an Uncle Tom.” They’ve written this about me.
So, we have to be very sensitive about the debate within the Muslim world.
So we can't talk about the elements of Islam that inspire violence, because this will only inspire violence. I am all for dialogue, but only on the basis of honesty and open, forthright debate.
Posted by Robert at August 14, 2006 7:36 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Certainly we can thank Brian Lamb for C-Span, but I have to say it was very disappointing to have this kind of format where the only responces come from one side; that of Akbar Ahmed. This kind of format leaves no room for an open dialog where both parties get a chance to respond in kind. One can't help wondering why it was set up this way in the first place.
Posted by: Mackie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 14, 2006 9:35 AM
Once again the only conclusion that I can draw is that Islam is utterly incompatible with the West. Unlike the revealed texts of the Judeo-Christian faith, which are presented as divinely inspired, the Quran is supposedly the actual words of God. How can anyone, who adheres to this doctrine, ever get beyond a literal interpretation of this text?
When this is coupled with the Muslims desire for their halcyon days of Islam’s supposedly advanced Civilization of yesteryear, and the reality of what their Theocracies can actually accomplish, the end result is misery and woe for the entire World.
This is not going to end well.
at August 14, 2006 9:41 AM
I saw Dr. Ahmed's interview with Brian Lamb early this morning. Although C-Span does, at times, have interviewees react to other statements on tape, I wondered if a) Mr. Spencer knew of that while making his interview b) Mr. Spencer would allowed to react to Dr. Ahmed's statements. Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Spencer. I do not think that is fair; but,it is typical, even with channels like C-Span...that ultra sensitivity to Islam. In general, Dr. Ahmed appeared to be thoughtful, somewhat critical of Islam, and took his faith seriously but not as a fanatic. I would not be afaid to have him as a next door neighbor. However, he did jolt me back into the state of suspicion that I normally hold for Islam near the end of the discussion. He objected to Mr. Spencer's documentary on the basis that it would, of course, enflame more Muslims. What doesn't enflame them? Was his objection any different than what CAIR or any of the other Muslim organizations say about a film about Islam made by non-Muslims? I think not. I look forward to the interview next weekend.
Posted by: Mary Rose at August 14, 2006 9:44 AM
Robert, I can almost see you tearing up your hair in despair in trying to have a 'meaningful' discussion with Dr. Ahmed who expertly peddles half-truths about Islam as unvarnished truths and so completely obfuscates issues so as not to be pinned down on real facts and issues.
I was amused by the tactics of Dr. Ahmed in sidestepping the issue of Islamic intolerance by pointing to intolerance in other Abrahamic faiths. As someone coming from an Eastern bent of mind, I can undrestand the criticism that Hindus/Buddhists/Confusianists etc. may have about the various Abrahmic faiths with their individual exclusivity (i.e. each laying claim to their own 'one' true God) but for Mr. Ahmed to use this argument is simply specious. None of the other Abrahmaic faiths can match Islam for its sheer intolerance. None (but Islam) openly and clearly asks for the killing of people belonging to other faiths. And, quite obviously, none but Islam refuse to evolve over the centuries. While all the other Abrahmic faiths have developed scientific reasoning, free thinking and a healthy respect over each other and differing points of view, Islam remains forever steeped in its age-old ignorance and intolerance.
I was also amused at the portrayal by Dr. Ahmed about Jinnah as being a 'moderate'. While Mr. Jinnah may not have been a strictly observant muslim (i.e. he liked to drink and smoke), he obviously identified with muslim exclusiveness in demanding that a separate land be carved out from mother India for muslims. Nor was he the least bit concerned about the thought of displacing millions of people from their ancestral homes and the likely bloodshed that would ensue in creating such a massive partition. Jinnah, in many ways, resembles the many muslims we see amongst us today who outwardly seem to have nothing to do with Islam but inwardly fully identify with the Islamic goals of exclusivity and separatedness. More on Jinnah can be found here: http://members.tripod.com/~no_nukes_sa/chapter_5.html
at August 14, 2006 10:24 AM
When Ahmed says Islam is inclusive, he means that it includes all Muslims, not unbelievers. When he says Islam is peaceful, he means that it does not wage war against Muslims (a lie, but a convenient one). When he says Islam promotes debate and free inquiry, he means "only within the bounds permitted by the Koran (and your local imam's interpretation thereof)".
Posted by: aynrandgirl at August 14, 2006 10:29 AM
Now this is rediculous. I am really disappointed to see no one from muslim community is owning up and trying to address Islamic fascism.
Ahmed : "Remember, Islam gave you a civilization 1,000 years ago with scholars and writers and astrologers and poets, which was unique at that time of the world. It was right at the cutting edge, the most advanced civilizations of the world."
This is ludicrous. The reason why Islamic civilization was advanced 1000 years ago was because of advanced civilization like Persia, Parts of India, Central asia and europe were brutally converted. Number theory, Algebra, astronomy etc... from these advanced civilizations were translated to Arabic. For a period of time the scholars from these civilization and their traditions survived even after brutal subjugation. But shortly there after Islamic fascism and ideology sunffed out scholarly traditions.
Anytime somebody talks about halcyon days of islamic civilization, they really do not understand the mechanics well.
Posted by: Desi at August 14, 2006 10:31 AM
Robert
Again thank you for you honest and humble work you do here!
I can't believe that any creditable news coverage would do that sort of thing.. I mean the least the host could have done was to insure his guest would reply to an obvious simpile truth...
My jaw was open when he actually replied casually to the moderate statement as an exact opposite!
That to me is essance of false journalism.. To make a twist like that so darn casual that it totaly distorts the truth.. Then not give actual airtime to reply to it is rediculous!
As a Christian myself I feel so angry about this I think I am going to blow-up a pulled pork sandwich! Nahhh that sounds too good I think I will eat one instead :)
Posted by: Weatherob at August 14, 2006 10:42 AM
Robert,
While Akhbar Ahmed may not be engaging in Takiyya (I'll give him the shadow of a doubt and accept that he believes his position), he is clearly being reserved in his views. One can believe that he accepts Islam completely but also does not want to shock or offend his Western audience. Thus he attempts to be gracious by reserving his most basic beliefs.
It is the same situation when I'm visting my Jewish cousins. We don't get into arguments or even discussions on Jesus because it serves no purpose for any of us. They know my beliefs and I respect theirs. The difference is... none of us, Christian or Jew, would forceably convert the others even if we had the power. I'm not so sure about Mr. Ahmed.
at August 14, 2006 10:45 AM
the lies from akbar were astonshing in defense and coverup of the violence that is the cult of islam.
Keep it up Robert. Request that C-Span give you the same courtesy to respond to akbar's comments as akbar had in answering your comments with you having the opportunity to respond.
Posted by: Texican at August 14, 2006 11:19 AM
I applaud Robert and others for trying to engage in a civil debate and critique. But I am afraid that neither civil debate nor a fiery speech is going to convince Ahmed and other coreligionists.
Civilized societies are in a tough situation. What is the way out?????
Posted by: Desi at August 14, 2006 11:19 AM
Akbar Ahmed is a fine taqiyyamaster. Hard to believe we pay to have the fifth column deceive our politicians. We don't have to disengage from the rest of the world but we can take action to protect ourselves from Muslims. Start with banning Muslim immigration to the West. Muslims are committing more than 99% of the terrorist acts in the world. No muslims, no terror.
Posted by: John Sobieski at August 14, 2006 11:27 AM
John Sobieski,
Stopping immigration is one that many people have been talking. But that may address just a part of the problem.
What about the millions who are already immigrated? How to integrate them? How to debate and make them see reason. Any ideas??? Is it even possible??? Have we already lost the war???
Posted by: Desi at August 14, 2006 11:39 AM
Dr. Spencer; Thank you for taking the lead on this issue, your command of the facts, and your willingness to openly express your opinion. We recognize that it may not be the safest line of work.
I caught Ahmed's slanderous mis-statement that you claim that there are no moderate muslims. Actually wrote down his words when he said them.
A wolf in sheep's clothing, in my opinion. If anybody gets to watch the show again, pay attention to Ahmed's feet as he responds to our host's questions.
Bring on a public debate, preferably in advance of any immigration reform bill. One where both sides get to respond.
Posted by: limes at August 14, 2006 11:43 AM
Good job, Robert.
The format of the exchange stinks to high heaven, though. It's as if "first we'll hear some ravings from a paranoid lunatic Islamophobe, and then we'll hear calm reponses from a typical civilized Muslim spokesman who will set us all straight on these issues."
I got the same feeling from the way you were "handled" in the Beck interview on CNN (particularly, in the way the interview began with "joking" comment about how he was expecting you would be some kind of wild man). You did a great job there, too, in a limited time.
The world needs to see you perform in genuine debate formats.
at August 14, 2006 11:45 AM
Stendec, I agree with your comments about the C-Span interview but disagree that the Beck interview handled Robert in the same way. In case of the Beck interview I believe Glenn Beck's style is to disarm all his critics by taking away their most potent weapon, i.e. of painting those of us who are critical of Islam as humorless bigots. His light-headed presentation style and his down-played seriousness all the while presenting incontrovertible facts (with the help of astute people like Robert) is actually (IMHO)quite a successful way of hitting home the points he and his guests make.
Posted by: Razdan at August 14, 2006 12:20 PM
The whole format of the C-Span program, ie, taking the content from one interview and using it as material for an entirely different interview, is somewhat ethically suspect, unless everyone involved has signed off on it. The format also presents a biased point of view, as other posters have pointed out.
I saw a brief section of this last night, and really couldn't stomach Dr. Ahmed for more than about :30. I just wrote him off as another pseudo-intellectual apologist for Islam who wants everyone to buy the 'religion of peace' party line.
Posted by: s at August 14, 2006 12:35 PM
I’ve been reflecting on the Akbar Ahmed interview. Talk of dinner and understanding with his Jewish counterparts in Washington DC. Bemoaning the world’s overpopulation with the solution of cultural exchange. Soft, articulate voice.
I’m sorry, but screw you. The forces which you represent have made it impossible for me to take my kids to the top of the Statue of Liberty. I can’t get on a plane without worrying about some idiot blowing me up. How much of my money has been spent in a righteous attempt to impose a modern form of governance for your people?
Who is responsible for the world’s overpopulation? The US birth rate is 2.1 per woman, in Europe its 1.8.
I’ve walked through the streets of Saudi Arabia and witnessed the masses in the streets. I’ve dealt with the Egyptian government and have seen the corruption. I know why muslims want to leave, its because their children have no future in the societies which they have built. But why is that my problem, my kids’ problem? Muslims have made their own bed, they should not be allowed to sleep in mine.
This immigration bill coming up after the elections could be a great thing. Press your representatives to include provisions to minimize or end immigration quotas from muslim countries. Include provisions whereby someone carrying ‘Death to Israel/America’ signs can be stripped of their citizenship and deported.
at August 14, 2006 12:44 PM
As I said, I'd be happy to debate Dr. Ahmed...
I'll echo some of the other commenters above, and say that I think the format of letting one side of a debate respond while the other side is (electronically) stifled is unfair and a cheap shot. On the other hand, I guess having you on videotape that they can stop-and-start is easier for them than to have someone in the studio standing next to you clamp their hand over your mouth when they want you to force you to stop speaking.
If you debate Dr. Ahmed, I hope it is not in private, since you will never change his mind, but in public, in a true back-and-forth debate that can be witnessed by open-minded people.
Maybe you are being handled like a "crazed wild man" by the MSM, because from the point of view of the PC MSM shibboleths...
They expect you to be some wild-eyed hate-monger, and are taken aback when this jocular and mild-mannered, and more importantly, well-researched and knowledgeable, person is before them. As we read and watch and learn each day, we are learning which viewpoint is closer to reality.
You do an excellent job of presenting yourself and your ideas. One day the MSM will actually allow an open and honest debate. That day you will let slip the dogs of truth.
Posted by: special_guest at August 14, 2006 12:50 PM
Truth versus taqiyyah. I wonder who will win?
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 14, 2006 1:04 PM
A memo to Mr. Ahmed;
Christianity does NOT encourage violence through its ideology as you have insinuated.
Among the 10 Commandments in Christianity is 'THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER'. There are no exceptione to this law. The closest (if not only) would be the self-defense argument which the Bible indicates IS permissible.
Violence is condemned by the Bible and that includes against "unbelievers." There is no Christian equivalent of jihad!
Without jihad, it is clear why Judeo-Christian societies are notably less violent than Islamic ones, almost without exception. No one need feel threatened by practicing Christians as they are forbidden and discouraged to attack ANYONE, Christian or otherwise. As world affairs unfold, we can all plainly see it is Christrians who have a reason for apprehension as violent crimes mount in non-Christian lands--and often against Christians in unprovoked and governmentally-approved violent acts.
As for your views of Christians, have you ever heard of the term "projecting?'
And concerning overpopulation, the Kuran can take a bow for helping to create this problem by its demanded high birth rates to facilitate jihad and create more jihadists!
We suspect that many of your supposed explanations of Islamic jihadist violence are little more than a veil to cover up the fact that Islamic governments actively foment and encourage violence against non-Muslims. And we think you know this is the case too.
Cheers.
Posted by: pythagoras at August 14, 2006 1:26 PM
I don't know what this guy's command of English is like, i. e. whether or not he has a strong accent and this is about the best he can muster, but why do all of these apologists have a rhetorical style like a Cairo street vendor?
On an "Islamic unity" note my friend of Pakistani Muslim descent is always criticizing the Persians as being tricksters, or at least stupefyingly good salespeople. That's what this reminds me of: cartoons depicting the middle east as a tricky place, where snakes are charmed and people are always getting kidnapped and hypnotized.
Now we're hearing the recitation of the hypnotic "religion of peace, religion of peace" and the West is charmed and goes to sleep. Maybe the conflict is between old world ideas of mysticism(and the great civilization that it brought!), and logical thought like mathematics which in turn has brought about so many technological advances from the West. It's one thing for these intelligent Arabs(and others) to come here and take advantage of our educational system and excel in the classroom, and another to live one's life by it.
I think quarter tones and the sitar and similar instruments have an effect similar to opium on the brain.
Posted by: Infidel at August 14, 2006 1:27 PM
Of course, in neither Judaism nor Christianity is there any violent movement today pointing to Biblical texts as its justification. But there is in Islam.
...and in those cases of the Old Testament the instances of violence were specific to a unique set of circumstances that existed for a time; rather than a universal mandate to comit violence as is seen in islam which transcends times, places, and circumstances.
So to equate all three as equally given to this sort of thing, as Dr. Ahmed does, is simply to sidestep the real question: why do such movements exist today in Islam but not in the other two "Abrahamic" traditions?
Because they believe that the founder of this nefarious cult was the final and most perfect of all who preceeded him; a huge claim, considering that Jesus who lived 500 years prior to mohammed, claimed that he was none other than God and that none should come after him who would be greater.
If Jesus is who he claims to be, than mohammad must therefore be greater than God if one supposes Jesus' claim and mohammad's claim to be simultaneously true -- which doesn't make logical sense to me.
Posted by: witness at August 14, 2006 1:29 PM
Akbar Ahmed said
understand what’s happening in the Muslim world because if you don’t and you treat all Muslims as potential terrorists according to Dr. Spencer thesis that there are no moderates, then what you will do is you will push a lot of moderates, a lot of marginal and wavering and swinging people into the extremist camp.
Ah, so now we know who to blame for the 1300+ year history of systematic Islamic violence: Robert Spencer! If he would just stop pushing all those moderates to become violent extremists (and we know how well-read Roberts' words are among the madrasses), Islamic jihad would disappear.
Nothing like directly mis-quoting and inverting your debating opponents' statement, then expanding it into a full-blown straw-man argument, then assigning blame for the very actions that the speaker is pointing out to the speaker because he pointed them out, to have a good honest debate. Thanks, C-SPAN. Thanks, Akbar.
Posted by: special_guest at August 14, 2006 1:33 PM
The debating style of Dr. Ahmed -- like most of the other Muslim "doctors" and clerics and professors and professionals whose interview & debate transcripts I have seen -- displays the poverty of rationality and rhetoric in Islamic culture.
One can dismiss the non-professional Muslim jerk-offs who haunt chat rooms and forums or strut their truculence in street demonstrations; but the mental poverty of most of these professional Muslims must be reasonably attributed to the intellectual backwardness and fascism of Islamic culture itself.
at August 14, 2006 2:21 PM
Good stuff Robert...cogent and succinct.
It never ceases to amaze me how Dr Ahmed and his ilk obfuscate, consciously or otherwise. They are simply unwilling or unable to answer directly.
Posted by: Cornelius at August 14, 2006 2:29 PM
Your challenge in the United States is to understand what’s happening in the Muslim world because if you don’t and you treat all Muslims as potential terrorists according to Dr. Spencer thesis that there are no moderates, then what you will do is you will push a lot of moderates, a lot of marginal and wavering and swinging people into the extremist camp. And that, Brian, I’m afraid even the sole superpower of the world cannot afford to do. You cannot take on 1.4 billion people where you have such interests as you do in the Middle East and South Asia and Central Asia....
This begs the question, "Or what?" Why is it that day and day out all we hear from so-called moderate Muslims are veiled threats?
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at August 14, 2006 2:48 PM
"My friend Imam Magid who heads the Dulles Muslim Center, the most important center here in Washington D.C. – in fact, the ”Time Magazine” had a story on him calling him the American Imam or something very popular, very obane (ph), very relaxed, very –"
Just thought I should point out that Imam Magid is
a) the imam at the mosque at 550 Grove Street in Herndon, VA, while the offices busted by the Operation Green Quest raids of Islamic charity/terror were at 555 Grove Street.
b)the chief lobbyist for that oh, so moderate Muslim regime in the Sudan.
c) was invited by someone (not sure who) to be token "moderate muslim" in the front row at the Reagan memorial in D.C.
Sorry if that makes you vomit.
Posted by: Abu Lahab at August 14, 2006 3:38 PM
It is interesting that Akbar Ahmed should hold up Jinnah and Iqbal as examples of moderate Muslims. Jinnah's legacy is the idea that people of two different religion cannot live together. Promoting Iqbal as a moderate is an even more laughable idea. Iqbal is considered an important thinker by Islamists and was one of the earliest backers of the idea of Pakistan. According to Iqbal, Muslims in India could not realize their ideal of an Islamic society if they could not live under sharia, and this would not be possible in a multi-religious India. Therefore, Muslims needed their own state where they would be free of infidel influence and would be able to practice sharia to their hearts content.
Ahmed was especially dishonest in citing one example of Iqbal's work (his poem in praise of Rama) when he was in his earlier, "nationalist" phase. In his later life, Iqbal became a full-fledged Islamist and became an admirer of Nazism. He repudiated his own earlier works, even going to the extent of publishing a rejoinder to one his own poems that he wrote when he was less fanatic!
Posted by: idolator at August 14, 2006 3:58 PM
AHMED: Chapters were written, Brian, over a period of time, very soon after the prophet but over a period of time. So, there was a debate should they be the Meccan chapters first, then the Medina chapters because, as revelations came they were divided according to were they being received in Mecca or Medina. Or should they be longer and shorter and so on.
But this is the literal word of God, as passed to Mohammed. Er, He's dead. So who is God passing all this to now?
Mohammed, the original "make it up as you go prophet."
Posted by: Caratacus at August 14, 2006 3:59 PM
Robert,
Another patient, detailed response to (what I perceive to be) deception on the part of a slick smooth-talking Muslim spokesman. Spoken interviews such as these have the advantage of reaching a large audience, but have a disadvantage in that it is more difficult to mentally keep track of the various assertions and contradictions, errors, and even flat-out lies (like Ahmed's claim that you said there are no moderate Muslims) etc. By contrast, your above rebuttal allows the reader to process the information more carefully for checking for evasions, contradictions, errors of fact, etc. I hope you were able to plug the books and the website, to draw more people to the written format, where I believe we (critics of Islam) have a big advantage.
It is possible that the discrepancy between your statements and Ahmed's* will create cognitive dissonance, thus provoking people's curiosity to read more.
*Some of Ahmed's statements were clearly directed toward trivializing the differences of opinion, directing people to perceive these discrepancies as just boring "academic" differences between scholars--the "Move along, nothing to see here" technique.
Ahmed says:
"...as a Muslim who’s been advocating dialogue and understanding, sometimes at great cost to myself and to my personal safety, what I am seeing is people like me being further and further marginalized..."
Not by the western media (!), but by his fellow Muslims. We've seen this time and time again where ostensibly moderate Muslims are pressured and threatened by their fellow Muslims.
Posted by: Archimedes at August 14, 2006 5:10 PM
Suggestions for Dr. Robert Spencer
Dear Dr. Spencer,
This fellow Akbar Ahmed is a pan-Islamic impostor. Why ? Because I have heard and know similar things about Islam from a so-called moderate Indian Muslim, Asghar Ali Engineer, from Mumbai, India. Because Engineer was espousing moderate views, he was badly beaten up by some members of his community, and after that he has never spoken about "philosphical Islam" of the Rumi variety. The point that Akbar Ahmed tries his best to obfuscate, is that Islam is not Rumi, but Rumi is a part of Islam. Similarly, Osama bin Laden is also a follower of Islam. Per Ahmed's view, which is acceptable, Osama is not the entire Islam. So, if Rumi and Osama are both part of Islam, with mutually distinct/exclusive characteristics, how can knowledge of Rumi help one understand Osama and vice-versa ? As yo have pointed out, it is Osama's mentality of jihad against all infidels that we are after.
Also, Ahmed makes a mockery out of other Islamic scholars who have preceded him. This starts with none other than Al Biruni who was not a fanatic himself, but could not condemn Mahmud of Ghaznavi's atrocities in 1060 A.D. in India. The plunders that Mahmud committed in the name of Islam were still considered acceptable by Al-Biruni. Come to the 20th century, 1933 (Lahore, Pakistan). Syed Abul Ala Maududi had clearly stated in page 6 of his monograph Jihad in Islam that the objective of Islam is not to commit loot/arson/murder for personal gains but to establish an Islamic state. That is whereever there is injustice (from Islamic viewpoint), it is the duty of Muslims (belonging to the party of Allah) to eradicate that "injustice" and replace it by Islamic justice (Sharia) and Quranic dictates.
What does Ahmed say to this view ? Maududi must be plain wrong to make such statements that are at complete odds/variance with Rumi ? So, will the real Islam please stand up ?
What a phony baloney !
Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal
Posted by: Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal at August 14, 2006 5:24 PM
Idolator is right. The really interesting assumptions of Mr Akbar Ahmad's arguments in citing Jinnah and Iqbal were:
I look forward to seeing Robert's appearance next week. Incidentally, will he be touching on any of Mr Ahmad's points there, or will it be a context neutral analysis of the world's crisis with Islam?
at August 14, 2006 5:26 PM
I found the interview with Dr. Ahmed interesting for several reasons.
What I know about Islam you could fit on a head of the pin and still have room left over, but I've read a lot about it for the last 3 years, and one of the most striking aspects of it is that Muslims simply don't use languange the way the rest of us do. It was refreshing to see a Muslim scholar not deny that the terrorists are "true" Muslims, or say that the terrorists are "hijacking" Islam, or "twisting" Islamic teaching for their justification. He also did not deny that the suicide bombers are getting their ideas from mosques, or that those ideas are not coming from the Koran and Islamic texts. Maybe I've missed all the other Muslim scholars who have admitted that hijackers and suicide killers are Muslims, but Dr. Ahmed is the first one I've seen do that.
But then we get back to the use of language. Dr. Ahmed did what many Muslims and their defenders do: he quotes from the Koran as if the words he speaks mean what the listener thinks they mean. For example, the two most widely cited passages all Muslim defenders use are that Islam forbids suicide and the killing of innocents, and that a Muslim at war is to strive for peace with his enemies because God prefers peace above all else.
In three years of arguing about Islam on message boards, these two ideas are by far the most commonly brought up in an attempt to prove that the terrorists are not following "true" Islam. What many people do not seem to understand, even though the proof is in the news every single day, is that killing oneself in defense of Islam is not considered suicide. It's martyrdom and is the highest honor any Muslim can hope to achieve. Making peace with ones enemies? Sure, as long as you consider "peace" to be total surrender and submission. It's too bad the interviewer knew so little about Islam that he didn't call Dr. Ahmed on those points.
Which brings me to my last point. I've never watched Q&A before so I am unfamiliar with Mr. Lamb. It was my impression that he used the excerts from Dr. Spencers interview as an easy way out. Someone apparently told him how to hold a Koran, and which verse to read from, but other than that he didn't seem to know anything about Islam.
It was an interesting interview, and Dr. Ahmed seemed very sincere. But it was also very discouraging to hear him tell of his own experiences being called an "Uncle Tom", a sell out, and that his views have cost him dearly in his own personal safety. Discouraging, but not surprising.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at August 14, 2006 6:42 PM
This admiration of Jinnah and Iqbal is very misleading. It is tragic irony that even Akbar who witnessed the violence of partition of INdia and was affected by it, is full of unquestioning admiration for the man who was singlehandedly responsible for it.
If Jinnah is the most moderate muslim leader Akbar can come up with, it is really horrifying to most South Asians( and also inspiring to many). I have selected some quotes attributes to him from the link given by Razdan (
http://members.tripod.com/~no_nukes_sa/chapter_5.html).
" He also married a Parsi girl, so unconventional for a Muslim leader at that time, though after getting her converted to Islam. "
"Extending this elucidation, he occasionally called Muslims 'a nation', stressing their distinct religion, culture, language and civilization, and calling on them to "live or die as a nation". He even called the League flag 'the flag of Islam', arguing that "you cannot separate the Muslim League from Islam."
"When we say ‘This flag is the flag of Islam’ they think we are introducing religion into politics - a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics, In fact, it contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam we take it as an all embracing word."
"Everyone, except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal, penal code, it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all to those of each individual; from morality to crime, from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet has enjoined on us that every Musalman should possess a copy of the Quran and be his own priest. Therefore Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually."
"I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. "
"Mr. M.A. Jinnah: ...When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago. "
at August 14, 2006 7:09 PM
Dr. Ahmed appears a sincere scholar, but at same time befuddled like some absent minded professor. He could not answer the questions, nor respond to Robert's solid statements, but went off on his tangential arguments, most of which didn't make much sense anyway. What does he mean by "So, it isn’t a question of this chapter abrogating an earlier chapter because, again, you have those whole logic and illogic and gods mind. You cannot have God constantly changing his mind." ?? Is their 'God' so confused that earlier chapters are supplanted by later chapters, but there is no abrogation of earlier chapters? Where's their god's sense here?
The main point was as Robert said more than once: don't preach to us about your religion-of-peace; tell it to the murderous jihadis who want to kill in the name of their 'religion-of-peace.' Maybe after reciting nonsense for nearly 1400 years their brains are as confused if not more as this good scholar's, so living with a confusing god makes sense to them. When illogic makes logical sense, be wary, especially when they use this 'logic' to kill you. Moderate Muslims or immoderate Muslims, they're out of the same confused lot. Arguing with them is futile.
They declared war on us. Good scholarly intentions aside, there's no conversation. Their Islamic 'complete code' is their own death-knell.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 14, 2006 10:17 PM
This Jinnah character that Ahmed proposes does have the right idea. Muslims cannot live in the confines of a Western society. Their ideology is totally alien to Western traditions.
THEY CANNOT INTEGRATE so let them MIGRATE back to Islamic lands like Iran and Saudi Arabia and live under the oppression of their religion and don't impose their religion in my country, with its traditions of freedom. Do not step into God's Providence, founded by Roger Williams under the principle that all men can practice whatever religion they believe or don't believe. Go back to your stoic, relligious existence and leave me to have no religion except myself. But you and your ilk have raised the sword at me, at my beliefs, in my country or the countries of my heritage.
Go to the lands where your 7th century ideology, where your censorship, where you debasement of women can flourish and where you can lick the boots of your Allah...but don't thread on me.
at August 14, 2006 11:32 PM
To Archimedes:
The following article surveys population numbers in nations around the world and human rights ratings awarded to each country by Freedom House, and says that the numbers show that the lower the percentage of Muslims in a nation's population, the better off that nation tends to be in terms of human rights. Did you ever manage to validate and deepen the conclusions in the piece below ("Immigration Advisory")?:
Immigration Advisory
In this post I expand my last one, and take Freedom House rankings of civil liberties/political rights in every country in the world, and correlate those rankings with the percentage of a country's population that is Muslim. (Recall that the best possible Freedom House ranking is "1" for civil liberties and "1" for political rights, for a total score of "2". Costa Rica, Germany, Taiwan, the U.S. and Canada are examples of nations that earned a "2" ranking. The worst possible ranking is 7 for civil liberties and 7 for political rights, for a total of 14. Saudi Arabia and Syria are examples of countries ranked "14".)
For 2005, here is the inverse relation I found between Muslim population percentages and civil liberties/political rights:
23 nations in the world had populations that were 91%-100% Muslim. These nations earned an average Freedom House ranking of 10.4 for civil liberties and political rights.
13 nations had populations that were 71-90% Muslim. These nations earned an average Freedom House ranking of 9.6.
8 nations had populations that were 51-70% Muslim. These nations earned an average ranking of 9.3
14 nations had populations that were 20-50% Muslim. These nations earned an average ranking of 8.4.
The world's remaining 130 or so nations had populations that were 0% to 19% Muslim, and earned an average Freedom House ranking of 5.1.
So the 2005 period covered by the 2006 Freedom House report shows that the lower the percentage of Muslims in a country, the better off that country tended to be in terms of civil liberties/political rights.
As I mentioned in my last post, there are a few exceptions to that overall pattern, like Mali. Mali is 90% Muslim, but was given a "4" ranking, which is sufficiently good to put Mali in Freedom House's "free country" category.Posted by: traeh
at August 14, 2006 11:54 PM
Interfaith dialogue is used by muslims for deception(Taqiyya).That's why Akbar Ahmed wants Dialogue and to stall for time for the demographic Jihad and the infiltration of Muslims into our government and military.The slow Jihad the soft Jihad.
Posted by: RED at August 15, 2006 12:33 AM
If Robert had less courage, he'd probably be at the top of the journalistic heap. He's got the brains, the skills, the compassion, the subtlety and the maturity of the best reporters and pundits. He's got the thoroughbred mental and ethical form that would qualify him to write for the paper of record, if that paper hadn't become too frequently flushable. That Robert has been able to move the huge boulder he's moving, even a short distance -- that he goes so much against the flow and yet actually has some influence on the mainstream, including the MSM -- shows what kind of a talent he is. Clever as a serpent and harmless as a lamb, a zen master of debate. Can't wait for the new book coming out.
Posted by: traeh at August 15, 2006 12:33 AM
Hello from Tel Aviv!
Once again a Mohammedan agit-prop pulling off a kitman & taqiyya stunt, a monologue nevertheless:
Why didn't C-span invite Mr. Spencer to debate this guy if he is such a great debater?
It would be interesting to know whether this serpent of Islamic conquest should be watched like Tariq Ramadan, this other 'great scholar' of the RoP?
For me, every Mohammedan infil-traitor that has settled in infidel countries, behind enemy lines, is an enemy agent that should be removed, as soon as.....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 17, 2006 2:12 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)