| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
This morning Bryan Preston published a piece, "When Atheists and Secularists Quote Scripture," at Hot Air, that got blogger Dean Esmay's back up. Esmay has responded to it with a characteristically gracious and well thought-out post entitled "Unbelievabily Pretentious And Tedious Nonsense."
Now, I had some exchanges with Esmay some time ago, and had not intended to revisit his nasty little blog, but he makes some assertions in this that are simply false, and since some people may fall for them, they bear debunking.
Oy vey. The world seems full of silly people today. First, it was Kevin D. and his ridiculous slander of Muhammed (see "A (Re)Definition of Terms" below), and now I see Bryan Preston has an even sillier, and far more pretentious bit of Islamophobic tripe. I should know by now not to engage people who take Robert Spencer seriously, but what the heck.
Esmay never offered the slightest substantive response to my arguments here or here. Instead he continues to snipe -- an easy refuge for the intellectually unarmed.
His argument here is likewise substanceless, where it isn't simply false. The part that stuck out most for me was this:
Furthermore, it is fundamentally wrong to say that a scripture that was written later necessarily takes precedence over verses written earlier. That's utter mumbo-jumbo, and isn't even a Biblical principle let alone a Koranic one.
It is unfortunate actually that Preston has phrased part of his argument this way: "Spencer’s argument is that if any Koranic verses have abrogated any others, then the weight has to be given to the later verses–and they’re the violent ones." That is in fact not my argument, and it certainly isn't based on some principle that later verses necessarily cancel earlier ones, as Esmay misrepresents Preston as saying.
Abrogation in general is in fact a Qur'anic principle ("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?" -- 2:106), although Islamic theologians have argued and do argue over what material specifically has been abrogated.
Many traditional Islamic theologians and Qur'an commentators argue that the violent verses of sura 9 abrogate more relatively tolerant material such as sura 109. This is not a newly-minted view "cherry-picked" by Osama bin Laden, as Esmay says; it is in fact a very ancient view. When discussing why Muhammad didn't begin sura 9 with the customary invocation bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim, in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful, an intriguing answer comes from a Qur'an commentary that is still highly valued today in the Islamic world, Tafsir al-Jalalayn. This is a fifteenth-century work by the renowned imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505). The invocation, suggests this tafsir, “is security, and [Sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword.”
Security’s removal by the sword meant specifically the end of many treaties the Muslims had made with non-Muslims. Another still-influential Qur'an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 ("slay the unbelievers wherever you find them") “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” He adds from another authority: “No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.” And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse’s functions is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an.”
This idea is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109 — the sources of many of the Qur'an's verses of peace and tolerance — are all Meccan. That means that many Muslims, guided by commentators such as those above and the imams who teach from them, see these suras only in light of what was revealed later in Medina. Being the last or next-to-last sura revealed, sura 9 is generally understood as being the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book — including the “tolerance verses” — must be read in its light.
Ibn Kathir states this explicitly in his commentary on another “tolerance verse”: “And he [Muhammad] saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not. Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know” (Qur'an 43:88-89). The commentator explains that “say Salam (peace!) means, ‘do not respond to them in the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.’” However, that is not the last word on the subject. As Ibn Kathir notes: “But they will come to know. This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until the people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west.”
In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance, with the pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the better course.
A modern-day Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, has taught that in the Qur'an, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the Suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
This understanding of the Qur’an isn’t limited to the Wahhabi sect, to which Sheikh ‘Abdullah belongs. The Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik’s 1979 book The Qur’anic Concept of War (a book that made its way to the American mujahedin Jeffrey Leon Battle and October Martinique Lewis, and which carried a glowing endorsement from Pakistan’s then-future President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who said that it explained “the ONLY pattern of war” that a Muslim country could legitimately wage) delineates the same stages in the Qur’anic teaching about jihad: “The Muslim migration to Medina brought in its wake events and decisions of far-reaching significance and consequence for them. While in Mecca, they had neither been proclaimed an Ummah [community] nor were they granted the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. In Medina, a divine revelation proclaimed them an ‘Ummah’ and granted them the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. The permission was soon afterwards converted into a divine command making war a religious obligation for the faithful.”
Anyway, back to Esmay.
My objection to those who point to specific verses in the Koran that seem to endorse violence is that they're often quoted out of context. Christians who do that to their own Bible are annoying enough; those who do it to the holy works of other faiths are often practicing slander.
Would Esmay then say that Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, as well as Humaid and Malik are slandering their own faith? This is a widespread understanding within Islam. It is based, quite precisely, upon the context in which the various verses were revealed. Esmay is trying to pretend that Bryan Preston or I made it up, and then charge us with "Islamophobia" for doing so.
There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Koran which says that it's okay to kill civilians in the name of Jihad--indeed, that's strongly forbidden.
I wonder if Dean Esmay has ever actually read the Qur'an. Anyway, what he is searching for is actually in the Hadith, such as this one that says: "During some of the Ghazawat [battles] of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children."
However, unfortunately in this as in so many other things Muhammad's words cut both ways, for there is also this: "The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."
In other words, if you're exposing the pagans to danger, you can expose their civilians to danger also. Certainly there is abundant testimony from Islamic history to show that Muslims understood Muhammad's words here as allowing for action against civilians.
Nor does Esmay even mention the widespread contention among Muslim theologians, even the "moderate" Qaradawi, that civilians aren't civilians at all under some circumstances.
And it absolutely forbids suicide, with no exceptions made for warfare. Which means that everything that suicide bombers do, or that the 9/11 hijackers did, is completely contrary to the plain text of the Koran....
It forbids suicide, but promises Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah (9:111). This is the rationale behind suicide bombing. Did I make it up? No, it is commonly quoted by jihadists. Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of Al-Qaeda, quotes it in recounting why he went to Afghanistan to wage jihad. Cherry-picked? Ripped out of context? Contrary to the plain text of the Qur'an? Great. But it's easy for Esmay to convince his credulous readers. It's harder for peaceful Muslims to convince jihadists of this, because the jihadists actually know what's in the Qur'an.
Much is often made, for example, of the fact that Muhammed was a warrior for part of his career. Those who point this out rarely note that almost all of Muhammed's campaigns were defensive in nature; that the one time he endorsed something that we'd consider an atrocity (the murder of the men of a Jewish tribe that had attacked the Muslim community repeatedly) was less horrible than things that Moses endorsed when he was a military leader in the Bible; that all Muhammed's military campaigns were marked by very strict rules against killing innocents; and yes, some were given the choice to become muslims or die, but only those who had repeatedly attacked muslims and violated treaties with muslims were ever forced to make such a choice. In his entire 10 year career as a warrior, Muhammed's body count was probably well under 1,000 total, almost all of it defensive. And once he took control of Mecca from those who'd been attacking his followers, his military career promptly ended. That is what most muslims believe, anyway, and most historians I've read see little reason to dispute it.
Esmay has asserted all this about Muhammad but provides no source citations, so in effect he's asking us just to take his word for it. Well, no thanks. As it happens, I have a book coming out very soon about all this: The Truth About Muhammad. It is entirely based on the earliest sources for Muhammad's life -- all written by pious Muslims. And all it says is just what they say about Muhammad's words and deeds. Anyone and everyone, even Dean Esmay, is invited to go back to those sources and see if I what I say about Muhammad is accurate. Anyway, in tracing Muhammad's career, it illuminates why jihadists invoke his example, and what moderate Muslims must address about that example in order to bring about genuine Islamic reform, instead of the shallow evasion and denial that Esmay and his ilk take for the real thing.
Posted by Robert at September 18, 2006 9:06 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I have a better one word response to Dean Esmay Khaibar.
Posted by: NicephorusPhocas![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 18, 2006 10:19 PM
The disturbing thing is that he has had every chance to read and study the matter. He has not done so. Previous criticism at this website did not inflame him with a desire for late-night lucubration (this sounds more exicting than it is). Instead, his amour-propre wounded, he became ever more obstinate in his misstatements and his misunderstandings. Not out of further study, but rather out of embarrassment, shame, and tongue-tied chagrin.
at September 18, 2006 10:57 PM
Get the new book out. It's time to end this nonsense.
I've read the Koran, and I'm a pig farmer from south central Kaintuck. But I have at least a 7th grader reading comprehension score, and to me the Koran is plain as day.
Why are we still having these arguments? The answer to that question is the key to the continued survival of Judeo-Christian civilizaton, and Hindu civilization, and Buddhist civilization, and Confucian civilization, and Shinto civilization... hinges.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 18, 2006 10:59 PM
"It's harder for peaceful Muslims to convince jihadists of this, because the jihadists actually know what's in the Qur'an."
The heart of the matter. The root of the problem.
I watched two Muslim apologists, on two different Fox News programs today, claim that the 'extremists' are misinterpreting various Qur'anic verses.
Who do they believe is a better Muslim. Irshad Manji or UBL?
To Muslims, God stated, in Sura 5:33:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
'Moderate' Muslims may not like to admit that their personal copy of the Qur'an contains that, and other troublesome sura's, but I'm sure that UBL would be glad to point it out to them.
at September 18, 2006 11:08 PM
Hugh,
Esmay doesn't sound embarrassed, chagrinned, or tongue-tied. I think you sorely underestimate the sense of truth PC Multiculturalists inhale and exhale with the greatest of ease and righteousness.
Posted by: remote_control at September 18, 2006 11:36 PM
When the hell do I get that kind of attention?
I cant even get linked from Jihadwatch!
at September 18, 2006 11:56 PM
KAOSTRL, I know you meant your post tongue-in-cheek, but I think Esmay deserves the attention Spencer gives him, for the reason that he is not a lone eccentric, but actually reflects a massively common and ordinary state of mind among millions of Westerners.
at September 19, 2006 12:00 AM
By "embarrassed" and "chagrinned" I meant his inward reaction to the unanswerable criticism he received here. By "tongue-tied" I meant he found himself unable to respond citing sura and ayat, or anything beyond the flinging of opinions, not that he had been reduced to silence.
Had his "tongue-tidedness" ended in silence on the subject, then there would have been no need for Robert's posting above, by way of response to the assorted assinine assertions of one who remains perfectly, if in both senses vainly, voluble. Indeed, not merely voluble, but a candidate for the Most Voluble Player or Dismayer or Esmayer Award.
Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2006 12:00 AM
Can anyone educate me about the existence/non existence of leftist liberals and their agenda in Islamic countries ?
Posted by: pagan at September 19, 2006 12:12 AM
Esmay is the fool, and only fools will follow him.
he thinks he can fool some of the people some of the times, but those who read and learn will find Esmay foolish.
at September 19, 2006 12:17 AM
A new visitor comment:
I arrived at this site (for the very first time) after reading the above referenced essay of Bryan Preston and following his "update" link here.
And I can assure Dean Esmay, and his like-minded brethern, that I found both Bryan's and Robert's posts very insightful, clarifying, and totally worthwhile.
Thanks again Bryan & Robert for all your labor and a job well done.
P.S. And to Dean Esmay's charge of "sillines" I'd suggest he's out of his depth.
Posted by: Russ at September 19, 2006 1:09 AM
"his ridiculous slander of Muhammed"
There has never been a better time to slander Muhammad, and there most certainly isn't a damn thing ridiculous about it.
Posted by: Foehammer at September 19, 2006 1:22 AM
How in the hell can Esmay not have heard of abrogation? Is he a troll, right there on his own site?
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at September 19, 2006 2:18 AM
"By "embarrassed" and "chagrinned" I meant his inward reaction..."
I cannot share Hugh's degree of optimism about Esmay's inner life and conscience. If Esmay had embarrassment and chagrin within him, then there might be hope he would change his mind at some point before Arab horsemen are riding triumphantly through his American city rounding up people to behead (and at some point after a few million Westerners had already been mass-murdered in various locations).
at September 19, 2006 2:21 AM
And then to attribute abrogation to Spencer?
Is Esmay mad, lying or delusional?
And how could we be sure?
At any rate, I'm sure of one thing: Esmay is not to be taken seriously on this issue by any thinking person. I'm quite certain I could handle him myself, without needing to call on the talents of Mr. Spencer, Hugh or Rebecca.
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at September 19, 2006 2:22 AM
"Can anyone educate me about the existence/non existence of leftist liberals and their agenda in Islamic countries ?"
- Posted by: pagan
My understanding is that such individuals do indeed exist in islamic nations, but that many of them tend to be underground.
About two to six feet underground, I should think.
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at September 19, 2006 2:24 AM
Why is it so hard to accept that what someone wrote or said hundreds of years ago as wrong, result of ignorance or bad reasoning and move on? Why does anyone in the 21st Century believe the claim that an invisible, imperceptible, and quite probably non-existent entity, revealed words to another human being, who did not even have a clue why sun rose in the east everyday or that the earth is round? Why do otherwise bright minds feel compelled to defend a doctrine that qute plainly advocates sword against a competing idea?
Posted by: therationalfool at September 19, 2006 3:59 AM
Lo and behold...The shrill, juvenile writing of Dean Esmay is back. After Robert's effective "Fisking" of Esmay's previous fluff-piece, I'm surprised he would again expose himself to such inevitable ridicule.
Posted by: Xero G at September 19, 2006 6:05 AM
Re: Dean Esmay's Unbelievably Pretentious And Tedious Nonsense
Esmay is not really about the intellect, facts and reason. Rather, he is about the ego and his words and "reasons" are a cover for his emotional needs. In fact, he will hate anyone who proves him wrong. On knowledge and intellect, its Robert (Mike Tyson) vs. Esmay (Peewee Herman). However, watch out for the pettiness of a bruised ego.
at September 19, 2006 6:42 AM
No doubt Esmay will be back with his One-Upmanship Act again at some time in the future. Such people are tedious, a bore.
Posted by: Frank at September 19, 2006 7:23 AM
Esmay exhibits in these brief exchanges regarding Islam no concern for evidence.
“And it absolutely forbids suicide, with no exceptions made for warfare. Which means that everything that suicide bombers do, or that the 9/11 hijackers did, is completely contrary to the plain text of the Koran...”--Esmay
No it isn’t. The verse that can be interpreted as a suicide prohibition was not in reference to putting one’s life on the line in jihad fighting. Seeking one’s own death in jihad in the cause of Allah was considered exemplary, and accomplishing it was considered the highest accomplishment.
http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/102.aspx
http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/358.aspx
Suicide forbidden, except in Jihad: Al-Azhar scholars.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3269316,00.html
From YNetNews:
""Islamic leaders: Suicide bombers go to hell"
“Suicide? Not in Islam. The following may be bad timing for the Palestinian factions preparing for battle against the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza Strip and for revenge attacks on the Western world.
On Wednesday, top Islamic clerics at the Supreme Council of Al-Azhar University in Egypt, perhaps the most important in the Islamic world, said that the Islamic rule (Shaaria) forbids suicide, the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat reported.
The clerics determined that a connection was mistakenly made between suicide and a "sacrifice to defend religion and the homeland". The clerics stressed that the faith of those who commit suicide is no less than hell.
"Those who commit suicide bombings in the name of religion are not Muslims but rather people who sold their soul to the devil," Islamic clerics ruled. "They didn't understand the principle of the religion according to which there is no killing allowed, except by law."
"There is a difference between jihad and terror, between sacrificing yourself and suicide," said Dr. Mohammad Rafat Othman, a member of the Jurisprudence Research Committee of the Islamic Research Academy, Al-Azhar.
"Many don't fully understand the Islamic commandments in regards to jihad. Someone who blows himself up in the middle of a crowd is a sinner who commits several crimes, first and foremost is suicide. It is well-known that religion has a sweeping prohibition on suicide or killing of others. Taking one soul is one of the worst sins one can do, commanded specifically by God."
Dr. Othman continued: "The second crime that a man who commits suicide carries out is the killings of others, while his motives are political and not religious. There is this suicide bomber who kills himself against his ruler and at the same time kills many innocent people -- that is a sin. Not to mention public and personal property damage."
Suicide justified in war
"Those who commit a suicide bombing because of political motives turn the suicide into a religious ideology using it to sacrifice souls, not of martyrs but of those who commit suicide because God promised them torment on judgment day.
"The martyr, according to Islamic rule, is a man who fights the enemy and sacrifice his life while defending his religion, his homeland, his wives' respect, and protecting his land. This is set in Islamic laws, and only if he dies this way, he is a martyr."
However, Israelis should not be happy about this strict ruling. Dr. Ottman was quick to hint that suicide against Israeli targets is allowed.
"Those using suicide bombing against the enemy, the land robbers, and the occupier of nations, are martyrs," he concluded."
Esmay also talks about people “slandering Mohammad.” Esmay therefore implies that what they are saying is false. But how exactly do you slander a man who is is described in the Islamic texts themselves as a terrorist, imperialist, ethnic-cleanser, extortionist, plunderer, rapist, slave-owner, misogynist, pedophile, and massive religious bigot? Islamic textual references for all of these claims about Mohammad can be found under in different topics here:
http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/13/ShowForum.aspx
Here is an extensive study of Mohammad’s raids and terror/plunder operations
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/RootsTerrorism0.htm
Quotes on Child Brides (and Rape, see below)
Child-brides
http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/64.aspx
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
Rape
Permission to rape non-Muslim female captive in jihad warfare:
http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/RebutMuslimRape.htm
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637:
Narrated Buraida:
The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."
(Sahih Muslim) "Chapter 29: IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CAPTIVE WOMAN AFTER SHE IS PURIFIED (OF MENSES OR DELIVERY) IN CASE SHE HAS A HUSBAND, HER MARRIAGE IS ABROGATED AFTER SHE BECOMES CAPTIVE"
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3432 (also 3433, 3434):
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (3371-3388):
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
at September 19, 2006 7:41 AM
Robert,
Just remember, you can't fight a war of words with an unarmed person.
at September 19, 2006 7:59 AM
"And then to attribute abrogation to Spencer?"
Well it seems pretty obvious Spencer has been travelling back to 7th century Arabia and preaching his own version of Islam as a means to discredit Esmay. Think about it - why else the beard?
And here's the proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(exegesis)
Seriously tho, see the "Discussion" tab on this entry - Esmay doesn't have a leg to stand on, even by Wikipedia's standards
Posted by: Domestos at September 19, 2006 8:10 AM
Domestos:
Agh! You have found me out!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at September 19, 2006 8:17 AM
...you'd have to get up pretty early in the morning to get one over on me. Or Dean Esmay.
Posted by: Domestos at September 19, 2006 9:27 AM
eastcoastbuckeye -
I think you meant "wits," bucko. Esmay is not short on words.
Posted by: Lynn B. at September 19, 2006 9:44 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)