| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
In "Fish. Barrel. [BLAM!]," blogger Dean Esmay (thanks to James) claims that I have been "nailed to the wall" by one "Matoko Kusanagi," with whom I had an exchange here. (You can find my other exchanges with Esmay here, here, here, here, here and here.) Esmay's post this time is simply more vile name-calling -- as is his wont. The substance this time, such as it is, comes from "Matoko":
I was watching the Obsession youtubes when I heard Robert Spencer make the argument that all muslims must faithfully emulate Muhammed's (SAW) 7th century warlord behavior because Muhammed is al-insan al-kamil, which spencer translates as "the perfect man". Bad translation. al-insan al-kamil actually translates as "complete human". I know this because we were talking about angels and reason and revelation at Eteraz the other night, and Adam is described as al-insan al-kamil in the Qur'an. And we all know Adam wasn't perfect. He ate the apple.So, I think this translation issue prettymuch torpedos Spencers argument that all muslims are mandated to behave exactly like 7th century warlords....don't you? Ha ha, im just a cyberchicklet and i caught that. Hmmm...wonder what other gaffes i can find?
wow. it just occurred to me that mebbe there is a buncha stuff in Spencer's new book, The Truth about Muhammed that references this botched translation. Anybody read it yet?
OK, let's take this point-by-point:
1. Matoko: "I was watching the Obsession youtubes when I heard Robert Spencer..."
My response: She must have been tuned in to the little voices that speak through her metalwork. I am not in Obsession. Of course, she probably means Islam: What the World Needs to Know, which I am in. A minor point, but this carelessness is indicative of the quality of her entire attack -- which doesn't stop Dean Esmay from falling for it, uh, hook, line, and sinker.
2. Matoko: "I heard Robert Spencer make the argument that all muslims must faithfully emulate Muhammed's (SAW) 7th century warlord behavior because Muhammed is al-insan al-kamil, which spencer translates as 'the perfect man'. Bad translation. al-insan al-kamil actually translates as 'complete human'."
My response: Unfortunately for "Matoko," Spencer is not alone in this. Among the others who translate "al-insan al-kamil" as "the perfect man":
a. Neal Robinson, senior lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Leeds, and author of Islam: A Concise Introduction (Georgetown University Press, 1999).
b. Barbara R. von Schlegell, Visiting Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Ursinus College Fellow, Penn Middle East Center.
c. David R. Vishanoff, assistant professor of religious studies, University of Oklahoma.
d. Tamara Albertini, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
e. Muslim Sufi intellectual Fethullah Gülen.
f. Dr. Usman Muhamad Bugaje of the Islam in Africa Organisation (IAO).
g. The Naqshbandi Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham al-Kabbani.
h. Islamic preacher Dr. Ahmad Shafaat.
i. Shaykh al Islam Janasheen - Muhaddith Al A'zam Al Hind.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. The evil and moronic Islamophobe Spencer didn't originate this translation: it is a fine translation, and it is used by Islamic scholars, even of the MESA variety, and by Muslim leaders and pious Muslims.
3. Matoko: "I know this because we were talking about angels and reason and revelation at Eteraz the other night, and Adam is described as al-insan al-kamil in the Qur'an. And we all know Adam wasn't perfect.
He ate the apple."
My response: Perhaps Matoko or Eteraz would be so kind as to tell us where in the Qur'an Adam is referred to as "al-insan al-kamil." Adam is mentioned by name in the Qur'an in Suras 2:31, 2:33, 2:34, 2:35, 2:37, 3:33, 3:59, 5:27, 7:11, 7:19, 7:26, 7:27, 7:31, 7:35, 7:172, 17:61, 17:70, 18:50, 19:58, 20:115, 20:116, 20:117, 20:120, 20:121, and 36:60. In none of them is he called "al-insan al-kamil." In 2:30 he is called Allah's "viceregent" -- caliph -- but that's as close as it gets. He is also known as "safiyu'llah," or the chosen one of Allah, but not as al-insan al-kamil.
Probably the confusion arises from the congruence of some aspects of Sufi mysticism, which strongly emphasizes the al-insan al-kamil idea, with Jewish mystical writings about "Adam Kadmon," the primordial man. But in any case, it isn't in the Qur'an.
4. Matoko: "I think this translation issue prettymuch torpedos Spencers argument that all muslims are mandated to behave exactly like 7th century warlords..."
My response: Matoko's point doesn't hold here because I don't claim that Muslims imitate Muhammad solely because he is al-insan al-kamil. Muhammad is called in the Qur'an "uswa hasana" -- an excellent model of conduct (33:21). To be sure, the Qur'an uses the same words in speaking of Abraham (60:4, 60:6), but it also says that Muhammad demonstrates “an exalted standard of character” (68:4), and that “he who obeys the Messenger [Muhammad], obeys Allah” (4:80).
So do Muslims imitate Muhammad? Says Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy: "No religious leader has as much influence on his followers as does Muhammad (Peace be upon him) the last Prophet of Islam….And Muhammad as the final messenger of God enjoys preeminence when it comes to revelation – the Qur’an – and traditions. So much so that the words, deeds and silences (that which he saw and did not forbid) of Muhammad became an independent source of Islamic law. Muslims, as a part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life. Thus Muhammad is the medium as well as a source of the divine law."
To take just one more of zillions of available examples, likewise the renowned Sufi philosopher Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058-1111) declared that “the key to happiness is to follow the sunna and to imitate the Messenger of God in all his coming and going, his movements and rest, in his way of eating, his attitude, his sleep and his talk.”
I guess Khan and al-Ghazali have been listening to that wicked Spencer.
Meanwhile, over at Dean's World this farrago has them crowing. Commenter "Mal" says: "Robert Spencer is certainly free to offer his interpretation of Islam, and I, of course, am free to see his main theme as the reductive, pseudo-intellectual drivel that it is. I say let the man speak. He does more to discredit his own arguments that way than any name calling on your part....I predict that Spencer will always have a die-hard constituency but will eventually be marginalized for his indefensible views."
Very well, sir. Please show me where I am wrong in the above, and I will acknowledge it publicly here. I believe I have just shown my views not to be indefensible at all, and invite you to respond.
Says Dean: "Indeed, should I compile a list of various scriptural and doctrinal points in Judaism, as a person hostile to Judaism, and present them to you as a mass indictment of your entire faith? 'Jimmy the Dhimmi' does this every day. So does Robert Spencer. Would you appreciate that crap? I don't think you would. I can make Judaism look pretty frakking evil if I want to. It wouldn't even be hard."
No, sir, it is not I who do it. It is not I, but jihad terrorists acting in the name of Islam, who make Islam look "pretty frakking evil" every day, and I don't have to try hard at all to find them. I merely report every day on how jihad terrorists invoke the Qur'an and Muhammad's words and deeds to justify their actions. And I have called upon peaceful Muslims to confront these elements of Islam and repudiate them, and to work to try to ensure that they do not inspire violent acts in the future. And for this I will not back down or apologize, no matter how much abuse you heap on my name and my work.
Dean also says: "...just ASK some Muslims what THEY think it means." Well, actually, I have done that, and I think you should do that, Dean. You may be surprised what you hear if you ask Muslims if they think Muhammad provides a normative example for human behavior. You would no doubt be very surprised to find that I begin my book The Truth About Muhammad by showing how both peaceful and violent Muslims invoke Muhammad's example to support their positions. After all, you think I don't believe there are any peaceful Muslims, so I wonder how those pages got into the book.
And finally Matoko says: "how many times have you heard spencer insist that the Qur'an is immutable, revealed, unchangeable, consistent and not open to contextual interpretation? according to spencer himself al-insan al-kamil cannot mean two different things in the same Qur'an."
How many times? Maybe, um, zero? I have never said this, and I challenge her or anyone to demonstrate otherwise. In fact, I have explained many times the contextual interpretation used by many Muslims that abrogates some verses in favor of others. I certainly have never said it is consistent. And I have never come remotely close to saying that "al-insan al-kamil" or anything else can't mean two different things at once.
But I have learned from past experience that truth, accuracy, and fairness are not high on the priorities list of either Dean Esmay or "Matoko." Nevertheless, I offer all this yet again in the first place simply as a defense of the accuracy of my work. Esmay's vicious character assassination is beneath contempt, but at least here I have offered evidence for my positions, clarification of those positions, and evidence that Matoko's conclusions are wrong -- for any reasonable people who may find their arguments compelling.
To sum up: Matoko heard someone on the Eteraz site say something, and she wanted to believe it. She told it to Dean Esmay, and he wanted to believe it. Neither did even the most elementary research, or even a Google search. Now they are celebrating their fish barrel-shooting without a leg to stand on at all, believing what they want to believe in the face of the obvious veneration in which Muslims hold Muhammad -- a veneration of which we were vividly reminded by Cartoon Rage and Pope Rage. But this they do not wish to see, because it does not accord with their view of the world, and of my all-encompassing evil and stupidity.
Fish. Barrel. Blam.
UPDATE: Dean Esmay has sent me this comment he posted on his original article. (You can see what that "Roob" business is all about here.) Here is just a bit of what passes for rational argumentation in Dean's world -- you can see the whole thing at the link. He is mostly berating me for supposedly knowing no Muslims, which is false and in any case something he is in no position to know.
Here's what I predict for you, Roob: you will die alone, unmourned and unloved. And in your last moments on Earth, if you have any conscience at all, you will wonder if your whole purpose on Earth wasn't just to serve as a warning for others about the dangers of hatemongering and rampant stupidity.You think I've got you wrong? Send me a private email that neither of us will ever reprint under any circumstances. Tell me I how got you wrong, and why I got you wrong.
Otherwise, it's all between you and your Saviour.
I must say I'm taken aback by the open hatred, vile slander, and unhinged personal nature of his remarks toward me. I do not know this man, we have never met, and he obviously knows virtually nothing of my real positions or the nature of my work. Yet he feels free to damn me with positively breathtaking intensity, condemning me to a lonely death and hellfire to boot. And you'll note, there is absolutely nothing, not a syllable, about the substance of my reply above. The facts, it seems, just do not matter for Mr. Dean Esmay.
With this kind of frothing, carpet-chewing, wall-kicking hysteria, and consistent refusal to engage in rational discussion, I do wonder -- again -- why anyone takes this man seriously.
Here, for your reference, is how I responded:
I am consistently astonished by the naked hate and slander you direct toward me.You better check that "Roobart Sbunsar" business: your friends lied to you: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011704.php
Meanwhile, you have never acknowledged that Tashbih Sayyed, a Muslim and the editor of Muslim World Today, is a member of the Jihad Watch Board of Directors.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013203.php
But don't let the facts get in the way of your unhinged, scurrilous attacks. They never have before.
Oh, and print this or not as you wish.
Posted by Robert at October 20, 2006 8:36 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"as is his wont" what the heck does that mean? Stop hanging out with Hugh. J/k With the success of your latest book everyone has picked a side, they want to claim to be your friend or your number one enemy. Based on how long you have been fighting this battle, I wanna be your friend, really, really bad. Please.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 20, 2006 11:01 PM
"Fish. Barrel. Blam." indeed!
The sad fact of this matter is that no amount of logic or supporting facts will change minds that are so charged with emotion that they are effectively incapable of seeing the truth.
These minds amongst us are as much the enemy as any.
at October 20, 2006 11:08 PM
Ronin -
Were you kidding? I couldn't tell.
"'as is his wont' what the heck does that mean?"
It's in the dictionary. I've used this phrase but, then, I'm a bookworm journalism grad.
Why should Robert Spencer dumb down his grammar and vocabulary for anyone (even those who really, really want to be his friend)?
Unless, of course, you were being sarcastic.
Posted by: Josephine at October 20, 2006 11:15 PM
Robert-
I understand why you have answer this nonsense: it is part of a general pattern of ignorance that must be addressed, but they dare not engage you directly in debate. So they snipe. Much of it is rooted in jealousy.
All hate and love are personal, and it's easy to detect a personal animus in these attacks. But they are Professor Irwin Corey "World's greatest expert" lectures (Esmay, etc.) without the self-conscious and lovable humor of Irwin Corey.
Conductor Professor Irwin Corey-
http://www.irwincorey.org/SE.html
Corey is funny, Esmay a pompous bore.
Posted by: Frank at October 20, 2006 11:15 PM
Well, never let it be said that facts will hinder any attacks mounted by the Islamaniacs or their lapdog apologists. At least they didn't call RS (PBUH) Satan himself. For now anyway.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 20, 2006 11:17 PM
Robert,
I think that you can regard Mr. Esmay's continuing attacks as a mark of honor. He recognizes that your work is influential and is displeased by that.
No-one who is alert will have failed to notice that the counterarguments at that site are rather sloppily constructed. Carry on; each of these exchanges reinforces the relative merits of the two positions.
Regards,
SRC
at October 20, 2006 11:22 PM
I couldn't make out what Ronin was babbling about, or Matoko for that matter. Maybe they're a little isolated from reality. The fact of reality is that Islamofascism is harassing the world, regardless of who the hell the Islamic ideal man is.
Posted by: sanman at October 20, 2006 11:31 PM
Jeeeez lay off Ronin, I already got my friend, bad grammer and spellin. Y'all need to relax, drink a beer and lighten up. I don't much likes it when Robert gets attacked, him being my friend and all. I do expect it as he is a powerful force and as such folks wish him harm. When I write a book you can all be my friend.
Posted by: Ronin at October 20, 2006 11:35 PM
Robert,
I admire the sheer amount of work and the time you invest in your mission of exposing the fallacies of Islam. The perseverance and the sound scholarship you add to it are almost overwhelming.
The person who thinks that she or he can bring you down with a "the emperor is naked" argument is only deluding his or herself.
Just go ahead!
Posted by: rocky at October 20, 2006 11:39 PM
Splash one. Splash two. Go, Robert.
Posted by: Stendec at October 20, 2006 11:44 PM
Esmay reminds me of Karl Jung's concept of 'the shadow". Jung says all humans have shadows that can make them good and great or evil and ugly. The shadow is an unrecognized strength that tends to evil until it is uderstood and acknowledged. Esmay's shadow here is jealousy, but once he acknowledges it, he understands the competitive part of his nature and that it is in his nature to excel. Right now, the jealousy shadow drains him, and he is a victim of his shadow. The shadow, as per Jung, will make fools of us until acknowledged. Others see "the shadow" in us when we are blind to it.
The concept reminds me of Saint Paul's idea of weakness becoming a strength. Hubris prevents us from seeing "the shadow" and it becoming our strength.
Posted by: Frank at October 20, 2006 11:45 PM
Wow, Robert, they really kicked your ass on this one. Time to shut down Jihad Watch, I guess?! (But then, the guys who post on Matoko's site didn't let her get away with it.)
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 20, 2006 11:48 PM
Some of us in the Diehard Constituency Cheap Seats think that Robert wears his phalangeal cartilage too thin on responding to this tripe.
Pleawe spend your time writing another book instead of tempting anyone to repeat this wannabee's name or visit his site.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 20, 2006 11:52 PM
Lol Mother E, you will always be my friend and I can not speak for Robert but I ma sure he feels the same. BTW, check my on going conversation with my new friend "Shia". On the Sadr militia takes over Iraqi city of 750,000 thread. I am learning much from him.
Posted by: Ronin at October 20, 2006 11:55 PM
at October 20, 2006 11:56 PM
Robert uses even a scurrilous attack as an opportunity to teach. To me, this is inspiring.
Posted by: Stendec at October 21, 2006 12:03 AM
Can the World turn from its current course? The Islamic influence in the West, Europe and the US, is growing daily. From higher birth rates and continuing immigration, we are witnessing a metamorphosis in our societies in the West. The evidence is all around us and in the news. Islam is here to stay and grow. The more it grows, the more influence on our culture it will have. The passport for further submission of society is the willingness of society's liberal proclivity to further appease people they would not usually appease.
If a Christian wanted a separate prayer room in the Queen's palace, it would never be granted. If a Christian demanded that they must be allowed to wear a hood in order to please God, corporate board rooms would laugh. If a Christian cab driver refused to carry blind people with sight-seeing dogs, he would be fired. If a Christian working for the US federal government demanded separate washroom facilities because his co-workers were messy, he would be counseled and disciplined for intolerance. If the Southern Baptist association complained about advertisements that made fun of the KKK, they would be burned in effigy in the MSM.
Well. Guess what? The Queen gave a room to a Muslim for prayer. The Muslims sue to wear the hijab at work and win. They are supported by the EEOC. Muslim cab drivers refuse to carry seeing-eye dogs and people carrying alcohol and the airport authorities are allowing them to do this. If any cab driver refuses a fare, he is sent to the back of the line which is very long. But to accommodate the intolerant Muslims, the airport authority in Minneapolis set up a color coded light system to identify Muslim cab drivers to the heathen US citizens. Never mind that the cab driver population is 75% Muslim. So if you are blind or carrying duty free alcohol in Minneapolis, you are potentially able to use 25% of the cabs available. The Muslims in the FBI translation department in DC have lobbied for separate washroom facilities. The supervisors have refused so far. That's it. No sensitivity training for the intolerant Muslims. CAIR routinely vilifies the US business that use "jihad" and "beheading" in advertising saying that it is insensitive to Muslims.
Why does the West appease these intolerant Muslims? Fear. There is no other answer.
It is growing everyday. Islam. I am utterly frustrated with everyday citizens that have no idea what is happening in our midst. Blogging is a great way to express one's thoughts, but no action comes from it. I want to educate people to the threat that we face. But the MSM, and even my own President, present the problem as intolerant Americans or Europeans. This is completely backwards.
People in the West have had a sustained peace for so long, that there is a complete lack of imagination regarding the clash of civilizations that we are experiencing. The problem, I fear, is the majority will not realize the problem until it is too late.
So my question: What can we do to organize and truly raise awareness?
Bubba's Pravda
bubbaspravda.blogspot.com
at October 21, 2006 12:04 AM
Robert --
The steadfast, concise drumbeat of your rebuttals are truly remarkable.
You pick apart their baseless attacks line by line and clearly lay out the facts for your views. This is something they cannot do. And, just as always, we should not be surprised when we hear no response to your rebuttal -- because the ONLY response from them would be to admit their wrongs, and we all know they will never do this.
I am so proud that you are on our side on days like today. While the opposition so often resorts to personal attacks and baseless accusitions, you stand strong and steady in your beliefs with cold, hard FACTS behind you. Facts that nobody could ever argue or disprove.
Thank you for all your hard work, and also I thank you for your tireless efforts to educate the clueless sheep on just what is happening to their world while they sit fat and happy.
at October 21, 2006 12:15 AM
Robert; I enjoyed reading Esmay’s page. Had no idea that you had such a diverse following. Sounds like things are past the point where some are beginning to get jealous. Your independent scholarship is refreshing and a national asset. Well done with Frontpage.
Posted by: limes at October 21, 2006 12:21 AM
God Rest Ye Merry, J Watchers,
Let nothing you Esmay;
Remember Christ, our Saviour,
And bless the U.S.A.
To save us all from Islam’s hate
When we were Left astray.
O tidings of Spencer and Hugh,
Spencer and Hugh,
O tidings of Spencer and Hugh!
at October 21, 2006 12:32 AM
Got a chance to check back and saw the update. That last exchange speaks volumes; a principled, thoroughly documented response to an emotional assertion is met with name-calling and personal attacks.
An old boss told me: ‘Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.’ Keep up the good work Sir.
at October 21, 2006 12:42 AM
Robert,
I encourage you to post all such posts of Dean Esmay et al...in fact I suggest you have an link to such posts with your comments only on the substantive portions of such comments(which being so few and so repetetive that I doubt if you have too much work on them in future). Dean Esmay and people whom he quote are evidently in panic of the books and rational arguments that are coming out from you that they are screaming on the web the only way they can....let us all see how arguments descend into screaming and kicking on Koran/Prophet/Hadith etc.,
RT
Posted by: RT at October 21, 2006 12:55 AM
“No way is the keyboard mightier than the bullet.”
Words birth minds, bullets wreck flesh. Bullets tearing flesh will not extinguish an idea, or belief. Minds will. Bullets are tools, words are machines.
Posted by: butterfly at October 21, 2006 1:11 AM
Robert
Am I the only one who wonders why you give Emsay the time of day? I had never heard about him except on J/W.
There are bigger fish to fry. Sub-contract Anti-CAIR to take on him if needed.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 21, 2006 1:36 AM
Robert, I congratulate you on your rational, dignified and precise stance in the face of these attacks.
This should serve as an example to us who post here, especially those who get carried away by anger sometimes. Let's keep the moral high ground that Robert so firmly establishes.
Posted by: Lili at October 21, 2006 2:09 AM
Note to Dean Esmay (I know you're watching),
You are an intellectual slob. You do not do your research and you are hardly a rational thinker.
You are an annoying pest and have been swatted as such by Mr. spencer. Go away.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at October 21, 2006 2:09 AM
The Islamic influence in the West, Europe and the US, is growing daily. From higher birth rates and continuing immigration.....
Not quite true,there are signs that the tide is turning here and even in France where they are bogged down by Islamic filth.
France wont slide into total anarchy,it would
only be a matter of time before the military
stepped in.
They are also partial to the odd revolution now
and then.
We are light years away from the point of no
return here,Labour know they will take a
severe beating at next Mays elections,hence
thier change of stance on multiculturism.
Some people believe Princess Diana met her
untimely end because she was going to marry
a muslim man.
I can`t see people like Sir Richard Dannatt standing
back while Britain becomes an Islamic country.
There is probably more chance of a flying
saucer landing in my garden than Britanistan
ever happening.
at October 21, 2006 2:14 AM
Some of the most vicious, despicable Nazis were not German -- they were French collaborators.
Mr. Esmay is as complicit as they. However, I hope he does not come to the same end, because of what that fate implies for the rest of the world.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at October 21, 2006 3:16 AM
I know it's a quandry for you Robert and you have explained why you reply, but like Infidel Pride I wonder if your very valuable time isn't egging this moron on. Just loved your God rest ye merry gentlemen Remote_Control. Brilliant.
Posted by: cathkins at October 21, 2006 3:24 AM
To post these sophist arguments with wannabe Islamic scholars is just self-indulgent. Yes you can beat one guy in an argument, and then post it on the site....but so what?..posting here is just preaching to the converted. If you don't take it to the next level and take the insight into practical calls for ACTION...it's just self-indulgence. So Robert, how about adding an additional site that doesn't just 'watch' but helps to organize a political response. Otherwise, you're just like those families that took a picnic and traveled to watch the American Civil War Battles....sure we get a picture of what's going on, but they didn't contribute to the fight did they?
Posted by: protectalbion at October 21, 2006 3:44 AM
Robert, you kicked him (verbally) in the crotch. He's out of breath so he's trying to spit venom, not realizing the all that comes out is manure.
Posted by: Marvin at October 21, 2006 3:58 AM
Another pig colloquialism: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
Esmay's rants reminds me of someone whose keepers let him out in the fresh air once in awhile, and somehow, he manages to get to a computer.
As tedious as these continual onslaughts are from Esmay, it does give you a chance to keep your skills honed in the constant battle against the nay-sayers.
at October 21, 2006 3:59 AM
Dean Esmay is an attention seeker who slanders Mr. Spencer to get more visitors to his site. Each time Mr. Spencer answers to his rant he gets more attention.
There is a point in replying to Esmay's drivel though. The so-called reasoning Esmay uses to justify his arguments is unfortunately fairly common among those ignorant of islamic teachings.
at October 21, 2006 4:44 AM
I think we've just discovered who nariz is. :P
Posted by: Gary at October 21, 2006 5:28 AM
Eloquent defense Robert. And unlike some of the others here, I understand the need to answer these affronts to your credibility.
Perhaps you could emulate David Horowitz on this matter and compile an archive of your defenses in matters such as these so that when they re-appear in the future, you are not distracted from your important work.
Meanwhile, please, keep all your communications with this cretinous Dean Esmay public. God knows how he might misquote you were you to communicate with him privately.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 21, 2006 6:55 AM
Robert for once l would love to see these elites go to countries where "Sharia" law exists, or even speak to people who lived through horrible events, such as stoneings. These elites have no common sense to see what is right front of their noses. l have similiar fights.. although not that mean name calling, although racists does hurt. l think its white guilt, guilt for whatever reasons suits their emotional needs. These elites cannot separate emotions from facts. Robert your work speaks volumes and they are so low, that the gutter is above their heads.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 21, 2006 7:07 AM
lol. my source isn't Eteraz, it is Michael Sells, from a book of quranic analysis.
you gave a list of inferior translators whose substandard work is patently inferior to Sells.
at the very least there is controversy about the meaning in arabic.
I find your promoted hypothesis that jihaadis are forced by Islam and the Qur'an to chop off heads patently unsupportable, and your research and analysis rendered completely useless by the corruption of your bias.
So what if you can perfectly regurgitate jihaadi atrocity logic? that makes you only just barely as smart as they are, like a trick dog.
when i get back from my current mission i am going to start a spencer watch site, and cross check all your inferior, biased, and inadequate translations with Sells and Weiss.
until then.
at October 21, 2006 8:16 AM
and, for just a tiny example of your abysmal ignorance, the kaliphah referred to in Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 30 is widely considered to be David, not Adam.
i think you are sort of a mechanical translater, like babelfish. and prolly just as bright.
have a nice day.
at October 21, 2006 8:31 AM
Matoko (Japanese, right?) is mistaken in that the fruit of the tree was never named in the Word of G_d. A slight error on her/his part.
Posted by: ubaggy1 at October 21, 2006 8:47 AM
matoko kusanagi writes:
"lol. my source isn't Eteraz, it is Michael Sells, from a book of quranic analysis.
you gave a list of inferior translators whose substandard work is patently inferior to Sells.
at the very least there is controversy about the meaning in arabic."
How convenient! The holiest book of the world's greatest religion is written in a language which means what any given interpreter says it means.
Does this mean that fervent muslims worship by the words of Allah as revealed to Muhammad or as revealed to "Michael Sells?"
Such is the trouble with "revealed truth" and the rabid sycophants of today who base their lives on incoherencies uttered by a crazed and common thief centuries ago.
What an inspired way for any religion of peace to bring us all together: arguing about what the meaning of "is" is.
Posted by: Sherman at October 21, 2006 9:44 AM
Peyton place
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 21, 2006 9:49 AM
"as is his wont" means 'as he habitually does'. Simple as a dictionary, dude.
To Mr. Spencer I give the same advice that is the motto of the 9th Infantry Regiment of the US Army, "Keep Up The Fire". You are among the leading edge of our fight for freedom and common sense in this world. Thanks for all you do.
Posted by: j5050 at October 21, 2006 10:24 AM
Another job well done, Robert. Thank you very much for this website and indeed your work is well appreciated.
Posted by: herself at October 21, 2006 10:43 AM
Dealing with persons of Esmay's and Kusanagi's mindset doesn't vary much.
When attempting any discussion, the liberal attitude kicks into high gear, always with the same results.
When your opponent gets to an area where they are uncomfortable, discussion goes by the wayside, and, either the subject is changed to something not relating to the subject at hand, or the conversation turns into a personal attack and diatribe.
Conservatives also have this problem, when beliefs are not underpinned with fact.
More and more, the ignorant shouting down the knowledgeable seems to be the tactic of choice.
I applaud your patience in presenting a reasoned voice in the face of such vitriol.
at October 21, 2006 10:44 AM
To clarify: Actually, Adam was perfect. That's why the punishment was so severe. That Adam was imperfect was Satan's argument. That an apple was involved is conjecture.
Posted by: voirdire at October 21, 2006 11:08 AM
Robert Spencer,
thank you so much for taking the time to respond to this craziness. Your answer is very dignified, eloquent and reasoned and once again demonstrates how far "out of her league" Matoko Kusanagi is in trying to take you down or outsmart you.
Several of the posters on her board including myself have frequently tried to reason her out of her position. However, in this case the matters were so technical and detailed, requiring a specialized knowledge of both the Quran and Arabic, that we were unable to do so effectively.
Matoko (which is a pseudonym, from a Japanese anime cartoon character, she is an American) can be a very intelligent blogger on many subjects. But unfortunately Islam is not one of them. IMHO of course.
Posted by: Dan Dare at October 21, 2006 11:29 AM
Why do you waste time with this fool?
Posted by: Benjamin at October 21, 2006 11:43 AM
Mr. Spencer has properly dispensed with the shoddy claim that "complete" is a good translation and "perfect" is a bad translation by referring to scholars in this particular area. There are still a few bits of refutation lying around that a wanderer like me can do.
Specifically, to say that "perfect" is bad translation and "complete" is good translation reads into the Arabic and even into the English a limited, modern distinction between the two. "Perfect" is (www.answers.com) from Latin perfectus, past participle of perficere, to finish : per-, per- + facere, to do. I.e., it means finished, complete.
The American Heritage dictionary lists as its first definition (www.answers.com) of "perfect": "1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind."
The Arabic word "kamil" comes from the verb root "kamala" which my fat Arabic dictionary ("A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic" -- Wehr, Cowan) translates as "to be or become whole, entire, integral, perfect, complete; ..." The adjective "kamil" itself is given as "perfect, consummate; genuine, sterling; complete, full, plenary, full-strength; ..."
So it seems in both languages that "perfect" and "complete" are near synonyms, and it is a localism or a modernism or undergraduatism to treat "perfect" as "superlative, flawless" strongly distinguished from "complete, finished."
Pilgrim
at October 21, 2006 11:55 AM
The words used in the Bible for "perfect" also have the meaning of "complete". That's what it means to be "perfect" in the Biblical sense - to be complete, lacking nothing, being made whole. If you read "complete" or "whole" when the word "perfect" is used in the Bible, it actually makes a lot of passages clearer. Robert Spencer is in good company if he renders an Arabic word that means "complete" as "perfect" because that's exactly how every single Bible translator translates the equivalent Hebrew.
Strongs -
H8003
שׁלם
shâlêm
shaw-lame'
From H7999; complete (literally or figuratively); especially friendly. (shalem used by mistake for a name.): - full, just, made ready, peaceable, perfect (-ed), quiet, Shalem [by mistake for a name], whole.
H8549
תּמים
tâmîym
taw-meem'
From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth: - without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.
at October 21, 2006 12:41 PM
Based on his writing, my opinion is that Dean Esmay is a hateful person with mental health issues. I've had some terrible experiences with a family member who operates in much the same way.
First - Make inflammatory accusations.
Second - When accusations are calmly refuted with facts, ignore facts and hurl personal insults.
Third - When personal insults are ignored and facts are reiterated, ramp up the ugliness with nastier statements intended to cause emotional pain.
This type of person responds to criticism or disagreement with aggression that is out of proportion and intended to intimidate. This type of person is petty and jealous and is usually unable to sustain any meaningful personal relationships.
I'm not saying this to insult anyone with this type of mental illness or personality disorder.
In my experience, the way to "win" in this type of encounter is to keep one's integrity and not descend into name-calling. Robert Spencer is very good at sticking to the facts. Although he is pointing out Dean Esmay's hateful statements, I doubt that Mr. Spencer will waste any of his emotional energy on such things.
Posted by: Josephine at October 21, 2006 12:41 PM
Ms. Matoko Kusanagi wrote:
". . .when i get back from my current mission i am going to start a spencer watch site, and cross check all your inferior, biased, and inadequate translations with Sells and Weiss."
Ms. M - Good luck with that one. Haven't the Sunnis and the Shi'as and their subhuman-sects been playing this game of " he said, no, she said" for centuries?
In the midst of so much darkness, Robert is a beacon many have come to trust. His noble effort to speak from his deepest insight of Muhammad and the Islamic faith, as this faith is understood by those who subscribe to its tenets, empowers us all.
Whenever the well-being of free people is threatened, they turn to trusted authorities, scholars and statesmen who have consistently demonstrated "due diligence"; a commitment to
integrity in their pursuit of speaking truth to power.
And yes the ultimate conclusion all free people will reach when they know their enemy, revealed to us by men such as Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Serge Trifkovic, Andrew Bostom, Orianni Fallaci, to name a few, is "the fact of reality is that Islamofascism is harassing the world, regardless of who the hell the Islamic ideal man is. (-sanman)"
Posted by: Malinois at October 21, 2006 12:58 PM
As usual Matoko, you are confused. 38:26 refers to David as caliph. 2:30 refers to Adam, who then names the animals in the following verses.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." Alexander Pope, Def Poet
at October 21, 2006 1:02 PM
This Dean Esmay is not a typical nutcase but a typical nonthinking liberal. I will be reading Robert's latest book but meanwhile I am reading through "The Noble Quran" book that I got from Muslims handing them out years ago (before 911) at torontos annual book festival (Word on the Street) and can see how this type of writing would create radical muslim thinking.
But what creates Dean Esmay types? Would he even EXIST in a muslm country? Would they let him (without converting to Islam, not tax paying status allowed for him since he is not a christian or a jew right) I take it he is a liberal secular person living in the States or Europe?....in that case....
Dean, baby, you'd be dead with a bullet in your head. (while they danced around you shouting allah ackbar!)
Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at October 21, 2006 1:21 PM
Have any of these morons (Esmay and his dubious Company) read the Kuran?? No.
Have any of these people studied Islam's historic impact on the world?? No, again.
If they did, they wouldn't be wasting their time slandering Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch.
They would be writing to their politicians, demanding that Islam be outlawed for being institutionalized murder which it is.
Ignorance, as these "critics" like Esmay and co. show, is a tough act to follow. And an even tougher one to defend oneself against.
They are Islam's best friend in jihad (except for maybe Hugo Chavez or jack Straw). God help them.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 21, 2006 1:29 PM
Oh, Roob! For shame!!!!!
Posted by: pythagoras at October 21, 2006 1:30 PM
oh I just read Deans homepage
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000211.html
he has a whole secition dedicated to "I am liberal"
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000052.html
I would be laughing if it wasnt so sad. Dean do you know that near where you live there are many muslim bloggers (according to them) that would love to cut your head off?
Brother it aint robert spencer or the american 'religious right' who would do it is it now? Would you have the chutzpah to go to THEM (the muslims inyour area ) and say all manner of criticsms? yeah right suuuuuure you would. In "100 things you should know about dean" (link below) number 99 says "99) I'm an excellent public speaker, and I kind of miss it."
Well now dean would you have THE GUTS like Robert Spencer does and have a public debate with people who want to kill you and send you threats like Spencer does regularly? Or even have the guts to talk IN PErSON with Robert spencer on a debate where you would be forced to actually back up your allegations with scholarly evidence instead of just firing off moronic insults via email to the gentleman? No you wouldnt would you now. Because unlike you my weeenie little liberal Robert Spencer has GUTS, he is what we call in Greek "a levendies" ( roughly: "a gentleman and a real man and good at it"). So please dean get a clue --your nation is IN DANGER. YOU ARE AT WAR. I am not even an American and I can see that!
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/007306.html (scroll down after 100 things about a blogger to '100 things about..dean")
Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at October 21, 2006 1:33 PM
"perfect" vs. "complete"
This is a perfect case of pedantic nitpicking by an ignoramus. In Hebrew the word "mushlam" can mean either "perfect" or "complete." If matoko gives the matter some thought, she might realize that the two concepts are very close. I am amazed that little minds think that they have bested an opponent by pointing to a very fine distinction, if there is one at all.
at October 21, 2006 2:39 PM
In what century will Mr. Esmay finally figure out that the Muslims would and possibly will kill HIM too (for purely ideological reasons that are impervious to favoritism shown to Muslims by western left-leaners like himself)?
My guess is never. It looks as though Esmay doesn't want to get to the truth. He apparently wants to conveniently stage a fight with a handy enemy ('Roob') in order to feel and appear powerful (when in reality he is really just a pipsqueak) even if it is only in his own mind.
Pitiful. Really pitiful.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 21, 2006 4:03 PM
"To clarify: Actually, Adam was perfect. That's why the punishment was so severe."
And that's why that original sin is a mysterium tremendum.
Posted by: remote_control at October 21, 2006 4:25 PM
From Malinois post above:
"Ms. Matoko Kusanagi wrote:
"'. . .when i get back from my current mission i am going to start a spencer watch site, and cross check all your inferior, biased, and inadequate translations with Sells and Weiss.'"
If the site indeed focuses on what it claims it will focus on, if it maintains civility, if it acknowledges that translation is a difficult and discerning art and not a multiple-choice test in which one answer is "right" and another one "wrong," and if it allows dissenting commenters, then I welcome it and I look forward to participating in it.
Perhaps the first item on the agenda can be this "perfect" vs. "complete" thing.
Pilgrim
Posted by: Pilgrim at October 21, 2006 5:39 PM
Mr. Spencer... I would rise above these detractors and no longer engage in their illogical attacks. You're better than that. It only gives them some degree of credibility if you continue to argue with them. It is clear that they have made up their 'minds.' (I use that word very loosely.)
Posted by: RonL at October 21, 2006 5:54 PM
"Matoko Kusanagi," if memory serves, was the cyborg protagonist of Masumune Shirow's magnificent Ghost In The Shell. I'd be surprised if it were the commenter's real name.
at October 21, 2006 6:25 PM
Not sure if you're actually going to read my comment, Hugh---but quite simply, you are good ...very good...with respect to articulating precisely and definitively the real and historic basis of your written comments. I can appreciate those particular Islamists who wish to draw you "into the open", so to speak...but my appreciation goes primarily to you and your efforts in defining the "realpolitik" of Islamic political and social thought in general.
Posted by: jim at October 21, 2006 7:25 PM
Oops..my error. My last posting was directed to Robert..not Hugh.
Although, in retropsect, Hugh's comments fall under my general observations as well.
Posted by: jim at October 21, 2006 7:26 PM
Here's what I predict for you, Roob: you will die alone, unmourned and unloved. And in your last moments on Earth, if you have any conscience at all, you will wonder if your whole purpose on Earth wasn't just to serve as a warning for others about the dangers of hatemongering and rampant stupidity.
You think I've got you wrong? Send me a private email that neither of us will ever reprint under any circumstances. Tell me I how got you wrong, and why I got you wrong.
Otherwise, it's all between you and your Saviour.
Funny how Esmay prophecys the end of Robert Spencer, who has many thousands of admirers as dying "alone, unmourned..." What an ass.
Why don't you cuddle up to your muslim friends and see how you are rewarded?
at October 21, 2006 7:41 PM
I recognize Dean Esmay's style of argumentation. It is attack, attack, attack. For what it is worth, from all appearances Dean Esmay (and most of his posters) are muslims. This would explain why there cannot be any rational and civil discourse between you..and he.
Dean is, amongst other things, Scottish and means Make, such as Dean Saor means Make Free.
I googled his name and found this User Profile and notice that his team mates on other blogs are Muslims, such as Freedom44 (a Shi'a Muslim, who is opposed to the current rulers of Iran, yet remains a devout Shi'a - Shari'a and all).
Or maybe Dean is in denial about his faith, not unusual because of necessity all believers have to be in denial, otherwise they wouldn't be believers if reason prevailed.
Anyway enjoy this from Pierre Legrand
Posted on September 28th, 2006 in Terror war, Islam.Read it all:Michelle responds to spittle boy…as does Hot Air Classical Values gets it all wrong
(Updated for clarity)
Dean Esmay darling of a certain section of the blogsphere doesn’t much like anyone to disagree with him. Which is somewhat hilarious when you consider his bleatings in the past about the nastiness of the conversation.
It is true that, of the slightly more than a dozen people who’ve ever been banned from commenting on Dean’s World, a majority have been left of center–but probably only 70% of them or so. In 100% of cases, the banning was for the same reason: personal attacks on my character and my motives (or, occasionally, directed toward my family or some other regular to this blog).
Remember that personal attack character thingy…it is important.
So anyways Instapundit links to him tonight with the comment that Esmay is disputing suggestions that Islam is incompatible with Democracy (update Dean calls out Malkin and Hot Air) and calling out both Michelle Malkin and Hot Air. Knowing that Esmay’s entire argument will revolve around strawmen I click on over to watch the fireworks. I would participate in the discussion over there but sadly I have been banned, not because I launched personal attacks or defamed him but because he disagreed with me and he couldn’t respond to my arguments.
Lets deal with the strawman argument that is Dean Esmay’s forte’.
Strawman: Esmay's forte indeed it is, and the strawman fallacy is just one of hundreds of logical fallacies, and were it not for logical fallacies, there would be no Islam. Logical fallacies are what keeps Muslims afloat. such as the circularity of reasoning fallacy e.g. "Koran is the word of Allah because it says so in the Koran is the word of Allah because it says so in the Koran ad infinitum ad nauseum".
Question then is does Esmay's use of the strawman indicate that?
a. He is a muslim
b. He is intellectual dishonest
c. He is stupid.
d a and b above
e a, b and c above
f. All of the above.
at October 21, 2006 11:32 PM
Malkin, then Shackleford and now Spencer. Who is next on Esmay's list? Whoever it is, we can be assured it will be Esmay who will be shot down in flames again. Again. And again.
Posted by: InfidelinIndonesia at October 21, 2006 11:51 PM
A man, Robert, is judged not by history or by his friends, but by those who consider him their enemy.
Many wanted to appease Hitler during those dark days of the 1930s - and even into the 1940s. But Churchill stuck to his belief that fascism was an evil and wicked concept, and was ultimately vindicated. Churchill did this even though he never met Hitler and against ferocious opposition from the liberal aristocracy.
Keep going, methodically and honestly, just as you have been. This fight will outlast all our lives.
As for Esmay's final comment, it can only be the arrogant rantings of someone detached from reality. Noone in their right mind makes any sort of comment about the horror that is the grave unless they're certain they'll come through the other side. At least he spells Saviour with a capital S.
Remote_control - excellent poem. Brilliant work :)
Posted by: Jerusalem at October 22, 2006 4:52 AM
One other thing - I suppose its a deep barrel - apparently not even the most powerful bullets can penetrate more than 2 meters of water!!
http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=mg18925392.400
Posted by: Jerusalem at October 22, 2006 4:55 AM
Mr. Spencer was not 'nailed to the wall' in the least. First, while the Quranic and Islamic interpretations presented here and in his books may tend to be the most Orthodox views (as well as those espoused by terrorists and their tactic supporters) inside of Islam itself, they are indeed respectable and entirely defensible views within the religion (which scantly receive any opposition). Next, to quibble about whether Mohammed was the perfect man or simply a highly revered figure who reached the apex of reverence: being associated with prophethood, is really splitting hairs. Were Spencer incorrect about Mo not being perfect, about which he is not, it would not make a difference.
All of this discussion is rubbish. Defending Islam is an act of defending the indefensible. It is akin to defending the NAZI movement. In that, Esmay should be ashamed. The only solution to Islamism is to ceaselessly call Islam to defend its indefensible positions, to expose it and intellectually give it mortal blows. The only place this can happen is on the internet. Spencer and others like him need to be given due respect for their efforts.
at October 22, 2006 12:27 PM
Hmmm. Esmay hangs with Muslims on the internet. Little does he suspect that Islam has no more use for him than he has for "Roobert Spencer". The Kuran instructs Muslims to lay infidels in their graves, physically and/or spiritually. Being a non-Muslim hence 'infidel' who keeps in the company of Muslims, Dean may find himself in the predicament he thinks "Roobert Spencer" is headed for: "dying unmourned and unloved." No Muslim is going to mourn his or any other 'unbeliever's' passing nor are any likely to take him seriously at any level (much less 'love' the guy!).
Muslims have no use whatsoever for non-muslims in accordance with Islamic doctrine that comes from the Kuran, the hadiths and Sira. That category, as previously mentioned, includes HIM. He cannot change that by attempting to show Muslims favoritism (Islam is almost impervious against such efforts as the French have discovered to their cost recently). And apparently this man is too far gone mentally to figure this out--or that pointing this out is not 'hateful,' it is merely an observation of reality.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 23, 2006 11:05 PM
(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.)