Jihad Watch: More on the apostasy hadith

November 9, 2006

More on the apostasy hadith

Dean Esmay blogger Ali Eteraz has replied to my post here about his announcement that the Islamic death penalty for apostates will fall, so I believe it is incumbent upon me to respond. His link to his post at Esmay's site is entitled "What Is NYT Best Selling Author Robert Spencer Saying Now?," which is an indication of the level on which they are operating. And in the comments field there he makes another jab at my writing my name in Arabic, even though it wasn't wrong and his fellow Esmay blogger Aziz H. Poonawalla, who initially wrote a sneering post implying it was wrong, has admitted as much. That doesn't stop Dean Esmay himself from using it again in a comment of his own.

I wouldn't respond to these individuals at all -- in fact, it is frustrating to do so, because I know few people have the patience for the convoluted arguments that must of necessity be involved in these things. But it necessary nevertheless, since in his present post he purports to refute what I wrote here, and does so in the context of casting aspersions on my knowledge and ability to comment intelligently on Islamic texts -- a favored and shopworn tactic, of course, of Islamic propagandists today and propagandists of all kinds throughout history. For people of good will, therefore, a clarification:

Spencer’s argument that my position is flawed is encapsulated here:
See anything in there about this hadith, in which Muhammad says “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (من بدل دينه فاقتلوه), being inauthentic?

Well, I don’t know which document Spencer was reading, but the rejection of the statement “whoever changes his religion, kill him” is right there. I admit the text is vague. It is written by an Islamic Lawyer, a man whose first language is not English and who writes in the arcane language of hadith-analysis. But, so what if it is arcane, isn’t that why there are people like Robert Spencer, best selling author of books on Islam, trained in all the methodologies of Islamic Law at the world’s top institutions, so they he can tell us what these vague things mean?

You see, I can't understand "the arcane language of hadith-analysis." I'm not even "trained in all the methodologies of Islamic Law at the world’s top institutions." It would be refreshing if arguments could be made without leveling personal attacks. But dodge the bricks Mr. Eteraz is throwing, and you'll see that he completely misrepresents the sense of the article in question. Says Eteraz:

Since he missed it, I will highlight the parts that flatly contradict the hadith:
Thus, according to the Qur’an, as a result of the advent of the Messenger of God in the Banu Ishmael, those who rejected faith from amongst the polytheists were subject to the death penalty, under the provisions of the Divine Law relating to the advent of God’s messengers.

And what does this Divine Law stand for?

It declares to the direct addressees of Muhammad (pbuh) that if they do not accept the message of God’s messenger (Muhammad) their fate shall be no different from those nations that have gone before them (See Surah Al-Qamar, the whole Surah especially verse 43 - 45).

The argument is very simple folks and I’ll dumb it down because that’s really what I do best (being a simpleton not-best-selling anything): In the link I provided, the scholar argues that there is a certain principle in the Quran (for which he gives citations straight from the Quran), which stands for the proposition that when God sent a messenger to Humanity, He (God) expected all polytheists (i.e. pagans) to convert to God’s message, and if they don’t, He authorizes his messenger to kill them. He goes on to tell us that polytheists and pagans who rejected the message of other messengers of God i.e. Noah and Lot, were destroyed by way of natural calamities, but in the case of the polytheists who rejected Muhammad’s version of the message, God wanted Muhammad to fight them and kill them, and this was why:

If any of these polytheists had accepted Islam at the hands of the Messenger and later decides to return to his previous beliefs, then he too should be grouped with those who had rejected the call of the messenger and, thus, also be subjected to the same punishment. If seen in this perspective, the narrative under consideration actually means that those people who were to be punished, according to the law of God, had they not accepted Islam, would face the same punishment, if at any time during their lives they leave the folds of Islam and return to their previous beliefs.

Want me to really dumb it down? This cat is saying that the Prophet had the authority to kill pagans if they rejected his message, as well as those individuals who converted to Islam and then converted back to paganism.

Now, how does this legal argument contradict the hadith at issue? Well, if you’ve been paying attention, I’ve been highlighting the relevant words: “these poltytheists”, “direct addressees of Muhammad”; “from amongst the polytheists (from the Banu Ishmaeel)”. The scholar is saying that the authority to kill polytheists who reject Islam, and to kill those who are Muslim and subsequently Islam, was limited to the Prophet Muhammad. The implication of that assertion is that no Muslim today can kill any rejecters or anyone who leaves Islam, because no Muslim today is a messenger of God. [In fact, Muslims constantly recite to themselves the creed: “…and Muhammad is His [God’s] Last Messenger.”

I’m sorry that Robert Spencer did not see all this there, but clearly it was right there.

In fact, it isn't there at all. Mr. Eteraz's argument appears to be that only Muhammad was given the command to kill apostates, and thus Muhammad's own statement telling his followers to kill apostates must be inauthentic. But even if it were true that only Muhammad was given the command to kill apostates, that doesn't prevent him, as uswa hasana, the "excellent example of conduct" (Qur'an 33:21), from extending it to his followers. The one doesn't preclude the other, and has never been understood to do so by any Islamic authority. Nor is such an idea clearly stated here, even in "the arcane language of hadith-analysis."

There is another article at the same site which endorses Mr. Eteraz's view that the directive to kill apostates only applies to Muhammad, but even here the writer acknowledges: "I must also point out here that there is, more or less, a consensus among the scholars that an apostate should be killed. However, I think that the basis of this opinion of the Muslim scholars is questionable."

Will the idea that the traditional view is wrong win out? I hope so. But it faces a tough uphill battle. Clearly Islamic legal theorists throughout history have understood that what was enjoined upon Muhammad (with some notable exceptions), and what Muhammad enjoined, applied to them. Muhammad is, after all, uswa hasana, an excellent model of conduct (Qur'an 33:21). The Qur'an also says: "he who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah" (4:80). At the same website, here is an article quoting Muhammad's statement: "When I give directions in matters of your deen (religion), you should follow them." That's how the death penalty for apostasy came about in the first place: Muhammad said to do it, so it must be done.

The view of Mr. Eteraz is an unorthodox, minority view, by the explicit words of the scholar who supports it, quoted above. I do hope it wins out, but if it were convincing to Muslims, you would see the schools of jurisprudence setting aside the death penalty for apostasy. Instead, all we have seen recently is its furious reassertion, in the Abdul Rahman case.

Mr. Eteraz appears to want to have it both ways: we are supposed to believe that Islam is inherently peaceful, and then believe that deviations from Islamic orthodoxy to make it peaceful will with relative ease win general acceptance among Muslims. But why are they needed at all, if Islamic orthodoxy is peaceful?

And it gets even worse:

Since I have the audience, I want to clarify a number of things. First, not only does Robert miss all this, but
a) He tries to leave this discussion altogether — which is not something one expects from a serious scholar of Islam (and NYT best selling author) — by bringing issues not up for discussion when he says: “What’s more, the article affirms the traditional rules of jihad and dhimmitude, which I have pointed out many times.” I’m curious. If we’re talking about the legal rules surrounding apostasy, why are you trying to bring up the legal rules for jihad and dhimmitude? If we were talking about securities litigation, would you talk about antitrust law? Apostasy and Jihad are very distinct within Islamic Law. Robert knows that because he is a best selling author on Islam. [If he wants me get into a discussion about the legal rules surrounding dhimmis and jihad, we can do that. I’ve actually dealt with offensive jihad already 1, 2, and I’m sure I’ll get around to dhimmis some other time].

Mr. Eteraz: I didn't try to "leave the discussion" at all. Nor did I make any claim that this had anything to do with what you wrote about apostasy. I noted the affirmation of traditional Islamic teachings about jihad and dhimmitude because so many Islamic apologists have called me ignorant and sneered at me, as you are doing now, when I brought them up. Some (including Mahdi Bray, one of the slickest of all) have even claimed that they have never heard of the doctrines I am describing. Next time they do something like this, I will refer them to the Hadith Cell of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.

b) He tries to change the argument when he says, “If only they knew that Ali Eteraz has declared this a weak hadith on the grounds that in some versions Muhammad says to break the apostates’ necks.” I hope it is quite clear that it is not Ali Eteraz saying that the hadith is weak, but the “hadith cell of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi” (see the bottom of the link). Javed Ahmed Ghamidi is a traditionalist-reformist in Pakistan whom Musharraf has been begging to stay on Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology. Ghamidi is the soul and mouth behind the Women’s Protection Bill.

Logged and noted. It was the Hadith Cell of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, not Mr. Eteraz, and Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is a good guy. Who happens to believe in the Islamic imperative to make war against and subjugate non-Muslims, but only for the time of Muhammad, which I guess is supposed to be reassuring. Unfortunately, he's an excellent example of conduct.

Nevermind the fact that at no point in the link does the Muslim scholar argue that we simply change the translation of the hadith by calling it “break the apostate’s neck.” Maybe Robert Spencer knows of other people who are so intellectually lazy. I’m sure he does. He is a best selling author on Islam.

I was referring, of course, to this textual variant noted by the illustrious Hadith Cell of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi: "In some narratives, as in Mu'atta Imam Malik's narrative no. 1413, the word "فاقتلوه" (i.e., 'kill him') have been replaced with a synonymous phrase "فاضربوا عنقه" (i.e., 'break his neck')." Mr. Eteraz, do you really think people will not click on your links and see what you're doing?

c) Then there is the matter of doing due legal diligence. Maybe if I was talking to another version of myself — a know nothing reformist wannabe type (my words) — it wouldn’t be a big deal if that wannabe didn’t do any cross-referencing. But I think when a best selling author of Islam writes, it is reasonable to expect him to have done his due diligence. Robert could have done that by simply typing “apostasy” in the search box right there and he would have found a number of links where this view on apostasy is a lot clearer.

Mr. Eteraz: I didn't present my post as a comprehensive discussion of Islamic views on apostasy. I was discussing your post, and yours only. For you to suggest otherwise again makes me wonder if you are more interested in character assassination than in serious discussion. If you want to read what I have written about Islam and apostasy, see my book The Truth About Muhammad.

Finally Mr. Eteraz takes issue with my saying that it is Muslims who need to be convinced that the death penalty for apostasy needs to be set aside, and his post won't do that:

But Spencer’s point — “and they are the ones who need to be convinced” — really does raise another issue: if I think that we need to spread these opinions to Muslims, and Robert thinks I need to spread them to Muslims, then doesn’t that mean that Robert is totally irrelevant since no Muslims really care for his opinion?
(Yes).

Then someone should inform Dean Esmay how irrelevant I am, since he thinks your coreligionists are learning their religion from me: he recently said that I am "enabling the Jihadists...and...encouraging young Muslims to think the Jihadists must be right."

Irrelevant, or aiding the jihadists? You can't have it both ways.

Ali Eteraz doesn't like me to associate him with Dean Esmay:

ps - Robert, I am not Dean Esmay. I don’t speak for Dean Esmay. I had my own blog long before I heard of Dean Esmay. I am not Dean Esmay’s lackey. I am much better looking than Dean Esmay. So please, whatever you have between you and Esmay (which you list in your post), keep it between yourselves. I only post on his site because a) he has more traffic and b) because it is clear that the frontpagers on Dean’s World do not speak for another.

If you don't want to be associated with Esmay, you might reconsider posting on his site.

And one final note from Mr. Eteraz:

pps - Robert, why do I get the feeling that at some point you’re going to bust out with some thoughts on Naskh (abrogation). Feel free to do so, I’m expecting it. I probably won’t be able to reply promptly b/c I am trying to get some other projects off the ground. I just wanted you to know, I’d welcome it.

This is a bizarre request. I have reported on what the Islamic authorities say about naskh, in books, articles, and numerous weblogs. But that has nothing to do with the present discussion, and it is strange that Mr. Eteraz thought I would bring it up in this context. Mr. Eteraz, if you have something to say about what I have actually reported about it, fire away. It would be good of you, if you do so, to deal with what I actually say instead of with misrepresentations of my positions written by Dean Esmay or others.

In a comment on this post, Aziz H. Poonawalla, taking the high road as always, points out that Esmay has apologized to me -- but a look at the actual apology reveals that he only apologized for condemning me to a lonely death and an eternity of hellfire, not for being a "liar," a "traitor," "dishonest" or any of the other epithets he has offered up. Thank you, Dean.

Regarding Mr. Poonawalla, it has now been 17 days since he wrote to me, in reference to an earlier inaccurate and flailing Esmay World hatchet-job on my work: "Matoko clearly was mistaken, and I'll post ot that effect later." Much later, I suppose.

Finally, at Esmay's, Mr. Poonawalla says to Mr. Eteraz: "I was struck by Robert's assertion that 'he was not convinced' by your earlier post. Given the stated mission of JihadWatch, I would imagine that he would want to promote your explanation, not attempt to undercut it." Here's the rub: Ali Eteraz should get a free pass from every non-Muslim, because he's on the side of the angels. No matter how flimsy and hole-ridden his arguments are, let's not notice. He deserves our support. He's a good Muslim.

This view is condescending and ultimately demeaning to Mr. Eteraz. He has to be able to fend for himself with his arguments, and not expect any free passes. He's right: I don't matter, but his fellow Muslims do, when it comes to whom he needs to convince. If his argument is full of holes, Muslims will notice, whether I notice or not. And it is. It doesn't need me to "undercut" it, Mr. Poonawalla. It is already undercut, and thus ineffective for what it must do. And I am going to continue to ask for more from self-professed moderate Muslims: that they devise some effective way to counter the jihadists on Islamic grounds, or stop pretending that they can.

It is wearying to write these posts. But I will nonetheless continue to do so, because the falsehoods being presented by thes people are serious, and they are raising points that need to be clarified for people of good will. So -- I hope this one was also helpful to that end.

Posted by Robert at November 9, 2006 5:57 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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.)

All this textual analysis is fascinating to some, but Abdul Rahman faces death for apostasy right now. The new Afghan constitution seems to be all sharia all the time.

According to current events:

Italy granted political asylum earlier this year to Rahman, who had faced a possible death penalty under Islamic Sharia law in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity.

So rather than harassing Robert Spencer, the brave reporter on sharia, why not try to convince Islam's executioners?

(Well, that might be dangerous.)

Posted by: Beagle

at November 9, 2006 7:56 PM

"He is a best selling author on Islam."

Mr. Eteraz:

Please let go of the envy; the resentment; and especially (and most usefully) the attachment to Islam. These three do not deserve your support.

The guy was a warlord. Had visions; in particular, convenient and self-aggrandizing visions. Got off on violence, sadism, and sex with young girls.

The man's visions are not worthy of your allegiance. You will always be resentful because you cannot see beyond the blighted vision of a crackpot. Let it go.

Islam is just stupid, without value.

Posted by: StillBreathing

at November 9, 2006 8:18 PM

Robert Spencer - They are not your equals in any way: intellectually, academically or morally.

I wish they were, because then their side of the debate would be an actual debate, rather than immature, stupid mud-slinging and name-calling. They're just not up to the task.

At any rate, I enjoy and appreciate reading your side of the debate. You are educating many of us and perhaps one day Ali Eteraz might realize how little he knows, eat a bit of humble pie and dedicate himself to learning more.

Posted by: Josephine

at November 9, 2006 8:22 PM

"it is wearying to write these posts."

I feel you Robert, it is wearying enough to simply read them. Keep up the good work, at this pace you may defeat the jihadist within either years or never.

Posted by: VileInfidelNeocon

at November 9, 2006 8:29 PM

What a tangle.

Robert Spencer, your patience is seemingly without limit, your logic most impressive.

Bravo!

Posted by: InfidelWench

at November 9, 2006 8:51 PM

Robert, I wish you wouldn't bring God into this:

'Allah'- the Islamic moon-god, is an invention by Mohammed since he couldn't get his followers to worship him directly. The cult of Mohammed is nothing but Mohammed-worship, as seen with 'Cartoon-rage' etc., and all the enraged 'clerics' telling millions of TV-spectators that they ' love their Profit more than their own children...'

The Mohammedan Allah is not god, inspite of the Islamo-Christians who would tell us otherwise...

Lets just call it 'Allah'- to avoid confusion...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at November 9, 2006 8:54 PM

sheik yer'mami:

Please note that what is set off in blockquotes is not my writing, but the writings of people I'm quoting.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at November 9, 2006 9:03 PM

Funny now that Islam is backtracking and confusing the effort to understand exactly what the hell they are trying to say. So they confuse it even more, in an attempt to discredit what has been understood. I guess now, water is not wet, and the sky is no longer blue? Let us get to the confusion factor, and the deception factor, and ignore what is meant to derail our thoughts, of something that Islam does not understand. Religion asside. Islam is whack! Write it down, take a picture, I realy do not care. Arguing, seems to be what Islam offers. It makes it's own laws, abides by none other, and is a detriment to society. Attacking our law, does not give credence!

Posted by: zooboomafoo

at November 9, 2006 9:35 PM

Dear Robert,

I think that both Esmay's and Eteraz's hostility is an unintended signal of their recognition that your work is influential. So it is a kind of disagreeable compliment. If your work was irrelevant, they would ignore you.

And the mudslinging is an unintended signal that they don't have more substantial arguments to raise in opposition to your position.

I think that Esmay and Eteraz are afraid of the same thing, that infidels will come to a view of Islam that resembles yours and finally decide to do something about it. When that finally happens, it is likely to put the kibosh on their great moderate Islamic hope. But that hope is probably a pipedream, and many centuries premature.

Thanks for your work. Be of good cheer; you are making a difference.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at November 9, 2006 9:39 PM

Esmay and friends have a lot in common with CAIR, and we know what they are worth.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at November 9, 2006 9:41 PM

By the same sort of twisted logic displayed by Mr. Eteraz, there can be no modern Muslims.

He said that the commandments of god (killing infidels) meant only those few infidels who directly addressed Muhammad (pbuh [you supply what the letters stand for]). So only Muhammad can carry out god's commands. Only Muhammad can spread this new "revelation" and anyone trying to spread Muhammad's revelation is violating god's command. That means every imam, sheik, and ayatollah is a false messanger. And that every written Koran should be burned (only Muhammad can spread the Word).

Guess they'll all have to go and stone themselves to death. Or would that be a stoning offense?

(my head hurts, now)

Posted by: give me doughnuts

at November 9, 2006 9:43 PM

I recognize that this is slightly tangential the conversation, but it's timely...

Are you aware that tonight is the anniverary of a strange synchronicity?

Q) What do Germany's Kristallnacht and America's jihadist assassination of Islamist-warning prophet Rabbi Meir Kahane have in common?

A) In both cases, failure to properly examine root-causes resulted in greater, fascistic, societal calamities.

Please review and comment to lead story in News Magazine on www.democast.org/.

Posted by: DemoCast

at November 9, 2006 9:43 PM

It is a true sign of a real man who can continue to debate these two (insert favorite epithet here) who continue to resort to name calling instead of rational argument. I am intrigued by the use of the "best selling author" adjective. Is it envy or just becuase they really have no argument and they know it? Patience and wisdom of Robert Spence, amazing.

Posted by: Pelayo

at November 9, 2006 9:51 PM

The more respect they are given, the more hatred they spew. We have seen the world over, what Islam brings. It is my conclusion, that it brings chaos, bedlam, and an intuitive effort to portray Islam as peaches and cream. You, and I know that it is not, and never will become an acceptable practice to civil conduct, period. Sharia is hideous, and no one would ever deam it a viable practice. When you negotiate with evil, evil will prevail.

Posted by: zooboomafoo

at November 9, 2006 9:52 PM

I'm beginning to think that the real reason Dismay and his minions continue to hassle Robert Spencer is because Dismay's website is worthless and needs all the publicity it can get. So like the leech that he is he attaches himself to a successful website run by a successful author and expert on that "peaceful" cult in order to survive. If Dismay wants to best anyone on the subject perhaps he should become a full fledged member of the peaceful ones and spend several years in Qom studying all about the world's biggest cult. Who knows? Maybe after a few years (10-20?) Dismay might actually be ready for an honest debate, provided that the mule-ahs allow him to return.

I think it is safe to say that at this point Robert Spencer knows more about Islam than all of Dismay's minions. Hell, several posters here know more than those charlatans.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS

at November 9, 2006 10:01 PM

Read this article by Thomas Sowell, concerning how people like Esmay are falling for toquque.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110906.php3
Sowell is a black American, BTW.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at November 9, 2006 10:02 PM

Hold on, my agent has just informed me that Islam has taken over the world.

Posted by: zooboomafoo

at November 9, 2006 10:03 PM

In the end it doesn’t matter what Mr. Eteraz thinks the ancient islamic texts mean or even if westerners write factual publications. What matters is how islam is taught and what the millions and millions of its followers worldwide think and do. Most muslims are illiterate do not read islamic texts for themselves they rely on the skills of clerics both to read them and to teach the “true islam” to their flocks. We have all seen the results, is it true islam? Who cares? We see what we see and even people who want to believe there are “good and moderate muslims” are having an increasingly difficult time explaining why muslims say and do the things they do. I have read and heard enough of we need to respect, empower, support, etc crowd. They all sound reasonable but islam doesn’t respond to their brilliant analysis. Islam has not changed in 1400 years and I see no sign it will in my lifetime. I think it is time to just say, enough. More excuses, more demands, more so called experts who go to great lengths to explain how we have misunderstood islam. It does not matter what we think, what they do is far more important. Make excuses for islam if you want Mr Esmay but as John Stosel would say “Give me a break.”

Posted by: Ronin

at November 9, 2006 10:05 PM

From the above link.

The classic example is slavery, which existed all over the world for thousands of years and yet is incessantly depicted as if it was a peculiarity of Europeans enslaving Africans. Barbary pirates alone brought twice as many enslaved Europeans to North Africa as there were Africans brought in bondage to the United States and the American colonies from which it was formed.

How many schools and colleges are going to teach that, going against political correctness and undermining white guilt?

How many people have any inkling that it was precisely western civilization which eventually turned against slavery and began stamping it out when non-western societies still saw nothing wrong with it?

Posted by: Carolyn2

at November 9, 2006 10:05 PM

That last line should have been Mr. Eteraz not Mr Esmay. Sorry but it has been a long day.

Posted by: Ronin

at November 9, 2006 10:12 PM

Robert:

Esmay's words should be backed by action.

In order to prove what he says, he should be ready to LIVE IN A MUSLIM COUNTRY PRETENDING HE IS A CHRISTIAN CONVERT FROM ISLAM.

Then after a few months, once back here in Dar ul Harb (the land where people have rights), we would see.

But none of those Muslim propagandists is sincere. I have to live and deal with them daily.

I really wonder how you manage to keep your cool with them. You have my admiration.

Posted by: rocky

at November 9, 2006 10:14 PM

France first, all other European countries that hate the United States, second, and everyone else that thought the US could make a difference in a Islamic regime called Irag, or Iran? We failed. Now it is your sorry asses turn. Se what you come up with. Asa lama lakem malekam salam!

Posted by: zooboomafoo

at November 9, 2006 10:15 PM

I am compelled to add this from Ask Imam.com

I can't help it.

from United States

How come an apostate is killed in Islamic Shariah but there's no compulsion upon other non-Muslims in the State?
Answer 7676 2003-01-08

There are two categories of people mentioned: an apostate and an original non-Muslim. The injunctions of the Shari’ah as supported by the Qur’aan and Hadith that is applicable to both of them differs. In other words, both of them do not fall under the same category.

The first one is an apostate or renegade, i.e. a Muslim person who has turned away from Islam and the second are those who are non-Muslims originally. The law for the first group of people, i.e. renegade is that firstly Islam will be presented once again to him and if he has any doubts or queries then these should be cleared out and he will be given a respite of 3 days. If he accepts Islam again, then fine otherwise he will be killed. This is substantiated by the noble Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) wherein he explicitly mentions, ‘Whosoever changes his Deen, then kill him’. This only apply to the males. A female renegade will not be killed, rather kept imprisoned until she accepts Islam.

As for the second group, when the Muslims conquer a non-Muslim land, they will first invite those people to Islam because of the narration of ibn Abbaas (Radhiallaahu Anhu), ‘No nation should be fought with until they are called to Islam.’ If the accept, then Muslims will not fight with them. And if they refuse, then they will be asked to pay Jizya (tax), if they refuse, this, then only will the Muslims fight them. This is also substantiated by Qur’aan, ‘Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor in the last day nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.’ (Surah Tawbah Aayat29). and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best, Mufti Ebrahim Desai

I suggest that the comedy team of Esmay and Eteraz go immediately to South Africa and straighten out Mr Desai. He obviously misunderstands Islam in general and the Quran in particular.

Esmay and Eteraz might consider contacting Mr Dasai at

Madrasah In’aamiyya, Camperdown
P. O. Box 39
Camperdown 3720
Kwa Zulu Natal – South Africa
Tel: +27 31 7851239
Fax: +27 31 7851091

Posted by: Pelayo

at November 9, 2006 10:16 PM

Robert,

Pop a brew, put on some music, wind down.

Dean Esmay, Ali Eteraz and Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding.............

............life is good.

Posted by: Cornelius

at November 9, 2006 10:17 PM

US of A bails out. Tar baby at your back door. Europe needing US help? Sorry, no response. Korea too, you Europeans are in some deep shit. Iran says it will bomb you, concern yourself with American elections. Shahib rockets red glare, not exactly what you had expected? Bunch of dopes! France will bail you out.

Posted by: zooboomafoo

at November 9, 2006 10:26 PM

All of Esmay and Eteraz's analysis are made mute by the fact that killing apostates is currently done by numerous Islamic communities.

Several ex-Muslims that I have known were beaten and their lives threatened by their own families if they did not return to the Muslim faith.

They had no choice but to "run away" from their homes, and move to America, never to see their families again.

Just thought I'd put my two cents in.

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog

at November 9, 2006 10:26 PM

How many apostates killed or threatened with death so others need to convince them that Muslims think apostates should be killed? Remember Robert Hossein (ne Qambar) of Kuwait, from back in the late 1990s? Remember what happened to those deemed apostates such as Farag Foda, stabbed to death on a Cairo street? The "Palestinian" who was supposedly an apostate because of his teachings on Islam, whose own students threw him out a window from the third floor? What happened to Taha Hussein that allowed him to escape the death sentence for apostasy? How many examples would Eteraz and Esmay need, over just the last, supposedly "modern" and "reform-minded" century, to make them admit that hundreds of millions of Muslims are completely convinced that the proper punishment for apostasty from Islam is death?

Posted by: Hugh

at November 9, 2006 10:35 PM

How many examples would Eteraz and Esmay need, over just the last, supposedly "modern" and "reform-minded" century, to make them admit that hundreds of millions of Muslims are completely convinced that the proper punishment for apostasty from Islam is death?
Posted by: Hugh

Two. One each.

Posted by: Ronin

at November 9, 2006 10:39 PM

Straddling the fence on an issue in the name of or under the guise of tolerance is a fairly safe position to take; but sometimes, in order to retain your humanity, you have to choose a side. I've seen enough of apologists, and enough of the attempts to appease the western mind with false hopes of an evolving, more peaceful Islam.

I'll dumb it down further. What this cat is saying is that he's chosen his side, and guess what? It is not the side of Esmay or Eteraz.

Posted by: leper

at November 9, 2006 11:06 PM

Ronin said,

"Two. One each."

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You crack me up!!! ROFLOL

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog

at November 9, 2006 11:11 PM

robert imo after looking at what both Ali Eteraz
and dean esmay sigh i would have to say they look like a good pair of patsys for radical islam also is the truth about muhamud avilible as a e book
for the blind i would love to be able to read it but i cant read print books that well anymore

Posted by: islamakapigeaters

at November 9, 2006 11:15 PM

This bit here:

"Finally Mr. Eteraz takes issue with my saying that it is Muslims who need to be convinced that the death penalty for apostasy needs to be set aside, and his post won't do that:

'But Spencer’s point — “and they are the ones who need to be convinced” — really does raise another issue: if I think that we need to spread these opinions to Muslims, and Robert thinks I need to spread them to Muslims, then doesn’t that mean that Robert is totally irrelevant since no Muslims really care for his opinion?'"

It is interesting.

Genuine reform of Islam by Muslims is important because such reform will better enable Muslims to live without inflicting violence and destruction upon their apostate and otherwise non-Muslim neighbors. For this purpose, it is of course important whether Muslims listen to a given scholar of Islam

However, it is also very important for non-Muslims to know whether or not such reform is happening, and to know how likely it is to happen in the future, so that they can adjust their policies accordingly, and thereby avoid getting murdered in quite so high numbers. For this purpose, it is of course *not* important whether or not Muslims listen to a given scholar of Islam.

The above-quoted scholar of Islamic law doesn't seem to understand this second factor, and the value of Robert's work in light of it.

He seems to believe that people are incapable of protecting themselves from Islam-justified violence by anything more than simply hanging on and cheering for whatever scraps of reform "moderate" Muslims may choose to throw their way, no matter how lacking in substance those scraps may be.

This is, of course, not the case. Over years, as more and more non-Muslims are murdered as a result of Muslims acting on mainstream, traditional Islam, and as we learn more and more about the ideology behind the crimes, non-Muslims will be less and less satisfied with the scraps of Esmay and Co., and will start pushing for other measures. Measures like much more stringent and much more readily applied restrictions on incitement to treason and to violence, or implementing profiling in many more parts of life - and using it regularly, or reducing Muslim immigration, or pulling aid from Muslim nations, or other such solutions.

In other words, whether or not Muslims listen to Robert, he is helping many thousands of people learn that Islam poses a real threat to their values and possibly their lives, a threat that isn't being reformed. In his best selling books, he is helping people learn that they need to consider developing ways of protecting themselves other than relying on such reformation. Over time, his work will help preserve lives and solid moral values (things like "though shalt not murder") from the threat mainstream, traditional Islam poses to them, and his work does this despite the fact that Muslims do not listen to him.

My guess is that this individual initiative, this refusal to sit and wait patiently and dependantly for scraps thrown by "moderate" Muslims when lives and core values are on the line, is a big part of why Esmay and Co. get so bothered by Spencer. It bypasses the "moderate" Muslims' power dynamic.

Posted by: mrsmomomoto

at November 9, 2006 11:20 PM

Doctor,

Careful my friend you do not want to cause me to develop a giant ego. I just call it like I see it. Small war story, I let a village soothsayer read my fortune in my youth, she looked concerned and told me “you have a head like a rock you will face many dangers and never quit.” I wish there was a kewl ending like I beat the crap out of her but I am a wuss.

I’m not sure how that fits but it does explain my sign on name. Anyway, O Reilly is insulting islam, how dare he?

Posted by: Ronin

at November 9, 2006 11:23 PM

Well Esmay, here’s the nuts of the situation!

The Islam religion will enslave everyone or offer death to those that don’t accept it. How should we, in the greatest nation ever in existence deal with the problem?

What’s your answer? I’m not worried about some technicality about some warped theological position and parsing words to make my point.

What’s it going to be?

Thank you for your time!

Posted by: credit man

at November 9, 2006 11:26 PM

Mr. Spencer:

Again, I wholeheartedly applaud your work. Please keep it up. You are nearly the only voice out there that has actually taken the step of actually printing the questionable texts. While they can be found elsewhere, including in the actual Islamic sources themselves, few have taken the time to examine them as you have. Western civilization owes you gratitude for your actions.

Esmay seeks to obfuscate or join the apologist crowd. He must not be allowed to do so.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at November 9, 2006 11:27 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I'm an avid reader of work, and have just purchased your recent book. However, although I realize that you may have good reason to fool with this group and it may fighting jihad on an important level, as a reader of many authors like Dr. Pipes, Melanie Phillips, Brigitt Gabriel, Dr. Kramer, Frontpage and others, I think you are giving these people more life than you are taking from them by detailing their positions. You are much to high on the scale of expert commentarists to respond to obiously sick people. I can't even read it. Please slam dunk them and walk away for your well being. We all see that they are low IQ and cultists of the split mind variety. They are taking your time away from much more important writing that we (I) want to read. Yours truly, Jesse Collins

Posted by: Jesse Collins

at November 9, 2006 11:45 PM

Robert

He never laid a glove on you!

Posted by: pismopal

at November 9, 2006 11:49 PM

RS has more class than Esmay can dream of having.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at November 10, 2006 12:14 AM

I am not a scholar of Islamic texts, but I am a human being with average intellect and I find the views of Esmay, Ali etc. surprising. Why they are trying to convince Robert that there is no death penalty for apostasy in Islam, Robert or the readers of his articles are not going to kill anyone for that. I think, everyone knows who are doing that (I can remind about the trial of the afghan convert to christianity and demand by the hostage of the journalist who was released only because he was a muslim), and these guys should spend their energies making these points to those guys, or to the al qaeda websites, and we all would appreciate that. And if they want to convince Robert with their interpretations, and want Robert to propagate their viewpoints, it is lost case because no Afghani is going to listen to Robert (there are plenty of reasons, non muslim, non familiarity with arabic and so on..). But it is a fact that apostate are being killed and have been killed, and it is concern for all the non muslims, and how is Robert wrong in pointing out to non muslims that there is something in Koran which leads to this, whether it is because of lack of understanding of the texts by Saudis, or Madarasaas run in Pakistan or not that is something muslims amoing themselves should debate instead of going on aggressive mode. The only way to convince the world is by stopping the killings. Someone may ask how it is that a muslim living in Newyork owes this to non muslims? To that I may just say that well, there is some concept of Ummah, muslim brotherhood and so on, and would not even muslims living in Newyork would also like to see the earth under Sharia?
And how is jihad and killings of apostate linked? This question is so dumb that I do wish to even answer it.

Posted by: pagan

at November 10, 2006 12:38 AM

Robert Spencer said:

Mr. Eteraz's argument appears to be that only Muhammad was given the command to kill apostates

In following up a few of the links in this discussion, I didn't get the impression Eteraz was talking about the factual question of whether or not Muhammad was the only one given the command to kill apostates -- it seemed rather that Eteraz was talking merely about the purport of the legal argument that appears at the Understanding Islam site, just below the Bukhari/Muslim classic apostasy hadith. Wasn't Eteraz merely claiming that the argument there purports (through turns of phrase like "direct addressees") to limit the application of the hadith to Muhammad's time? It's not clear to me that Eteraz is even claiming the limitation is objectively correct. From what I gleaned, Eteraz could just as well have meant merely that that argument, whether "correct" or not, is a trend that he thinks will grow and be accepted, and it's presence at the Understanding Islam site is his claimed example of that trend.

That was my impression of Eteraz' intent at the point of the discussion I refer to, but maybe I didn't follow up enough of the links and history of the discussion.

Posted by: traeh

at November 10, 2006 1:47 AM

my mistake -- Eteraz does claim the legal argument in question is correct.

Posted by: traeh

at November 10, 2006 1:55 AM

it must be a living hell inside the minds of "Esmay and Eteraz ", how they are spinning this appologist storyline, they must be indeed insane to to believe their own lies. like what others have said, it does not matter what appologist believe in, its the regular achemed muslim believes in, that its their right to kill apostates

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess

at November 10, 2006 2:07 AM

The Islamic lawyer's hadith explanation to which Eteraz refers (after clicking the link, scroll down to the "General Notes" below the hadith) doesn't seem an "airtight" argument that the classic apostasy hadith (ordering capital punishment) is invalid. The General Notes under the hadith might include a claim that the hadith in question is invalid, but I don't see any argument being made there. Whether Eteraz is right that the General Notes make that claim (much less argue for it) depends on whether Eteraz is correct in highlighting in those General Notes the phrase "direct addressees," and the other two phrases he calls attention to. Provided, that is, that the legal scholar who wrote the General Notes meant to indicate by those phrases what Eteraz claims: that the death penalty for apostasy was only proper at the time of Muhammad, imposed by Muhammad. If that's what the legal scholar meant, he certainly wasn't being very explicit. Odd, given the importance of the matter.

Posted by: traeh

at November 10, 2006 2:38 AM

err...excuse me, why should aziz have to apolo for me?

i prefer Ibn Arabi's quranic exegesis to yours with good reason. Your exegesis would have us believe that being "the perfect man" inspires the fundamentalists to chop heads and kill apostates in emulation of Muhammed. Ibn Arabi's exegesis is that al-insan al-kamil means perfect/complete in humanity, like Adam, capable of knowing the 99 names of god.
Ibn Arabi is a real Islamic scholar, actually, the Muyyahidin or shayk of shayks, and he has authored over 200 books...as opposed to your ...six?
And u are not an islamic scholar. Your degree is from...some xian college?
u also attempt to use uswan hasana to prove the head choppers get sanctioned by the Qur'an...well, if headchopping is uswan hasana, then why aren't the generous, kind and wise things that Muhammed did also a compulsion to follow? Why dont the headchoppers instead go around cutting of the sleeve of their robes so as not to disturb a sleeping cat?

And, u are wrong about Adam being the kaliphah-- a caliph of one? David is the kaliphah refferred to by the angels.
u should apolo for being wrong, not me. =)

Posted by: matoko kusanagi

at November 10, 2006 3:33 AM

"Matoko Kusanagi":

You say: "err...excuse me, why should aziz have to apolo for me?"

Because you were wrong, and he, at least, knows it.

You ask: "i prefer Ibn Arabi's quranic exegesis to yours with good reason. Your exegesis would have us believe that being 'the perfect man' inspires the fundamentalists to chop heads and kill apostates in emulation of Muhammed."

Oh, don't give me so much credit. I don't have any exegesis at all. I just report on the "fundamentalists'" exegesis. Zarqawi, for example, referred not long before his demise to Muhammad's beheading his enemies after the Battle of Badr as justification for beheading his enemies in Iraq. There are numerous other examples of "fundamentalists" justifying their violent actions by reference to Muhammad in my new book.

You say: "Ibn Arabi's exegesis is that al-insan al-kamil means perfect/complete in humanity, like Adam, capable of knowing the 99 names of god."

Indeed. That is not just the view of Ibn Arabi. You'll find that it is held by al-Jaza'iri and many others.

You say: "Ibn Arabi is a real Islamic scholar, actually, the Muyyahidin or shayk of shayks, and he has authored over 200 books...as opposed to your ...six?"

Six is correct.

You say: "And u are not an islamic scholar. Your degree is from...some xian college?"

Actually, no. I never attended a Christian college. My degree is from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. But as I have said many times, my work is not based on my degrees (or relative number of books written), or any claim to be a scholar whose word must be accepted without evidence. In my books there is exhaustive documentation from Islamic texts for everything I say. Fair-minded people can check those references and see whether or not I am misusing those texts, and many have done so.

You say: "u also attempt to use uswan hasana to prove the head choppers get sanctioned by the Qur'an...well, if headchopping is uswan hasana, then why aren't the generous, kind and wise things that Muhammed did also a compulsion to follow? Why dont the headchoppers instead go around cutting of the sleeve of their robes so as not to disturb a sleeping cat?"

I don't "attempt to use uswan [sic] hasana to prove the head choppers get sanctioned by the Qur'an." They do that by their own words, which I report, and ask self-professed moderate Muslims to refute. I don't believe that is an unreasonable request, and I will not apologize for making it.

You say: "And, u are wrong about Adam being the kaliphah-- a caliph of one? David is the kaliphah refferred to by the angels.
u should apolo for being wrong, not me. =)"

Here is the passage in question: "Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: 'I will create a vicegerent [caliph in the Arabic] on earth.' They said: 'Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?' He said: 'I know what ye know not.' And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: 'Tell me the names of these if ye are right'" (Qur'an 2:30-31).

So I suppose I am to believe that when that passage refers to Adam immediately after saying "I will create a caliph on earth," it really meant David? I invite you to read the tafsir of your choice, and any one of them will tell you the caliph in this passage is Adam.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at November 10, 2006 4:25 AM

All this dizzying scriptural hairsplitting achieves little, if the practice of punishing ex-Muslims for apostasy still prevails in the real world. Even if Eteraz trounces Robert in a debate over this hands-down....what then? I might actually agree with Eteraz's comment of Robert's "irrelevance" somewhat...that in fact, it IS irrelevant for Muslims to try and change Robert's views (or any non-Muslim's views, for that matter) about apostasy at all . What's the point of convincing Robert and JW they're wrong about Islam and apostasy, when so many Muslims worldwide aren't convinced themselves and keep on making apostates' lives miserable, even to the point of making it national policy? I'm not just talking about the Abdul-Rahmans of the world. I was in a church in Malaysia a few years ago, listening to a visiting Malay Muslim tell the congregation of his intent to convert to the Christian faith. He was visibly stressed about it and asked the church for prayer. He wasn't going to get executed, but he definitely would lose benefits, a job, and possibly get fined and even imprisoned....just for choosing to believe what he wanted to believe! I knew nothing of Islam at the time, but witnessing this totally blew my mind. China isn't even this bad....I've been to China many times and I'd never seen anyone so agonized about changing his faith for fear of what his government would do as I did this poor Malay. If a supposedly moderate Malaysia doesn't buy into Eteraz's "dumbed down" version of the hadiths and treatment-of-apostates, Lord knows what's going on in more orthodox Islamic states. If the Islamic world merely stopped treating apostates badly and ridded itself of policies that prevent apostates-to-be from believing whatever they choose, they'll find quickly that there won't be anything to debate about with the non-Muslim world regarding apostasy, REGARDLESS of what the hadiths say.

Posted by: yadayada

at November 10, 2006 4:42 AM

These ignorant people are saying these things because they are residing in the US. If they were living right in the midst of moslem controlled countries, they cant be making the claims that the koran did not commant the belioevers to kill unbelievers. If they do, they will even risk their own heads.
Have they cared enough to ask christians living in Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria etc who have first hand experience of moslems executing the command they know very well in their koran?
How will they convince the mujahedeens and other islamic schorlars? The idea of believers killing the unbelievers is a common knowledge in islam everywhere.
it is not the terrorists who are corrupting islam but people like Dean Esmay and Eteraz who are doing 'schorlarly' job on passages of the koran which are common knowledge among fundamental moslems everywhere.
They accuse Roberts of not knowing or interpreting the arabic well, are they themselves schorlars of arabic too to be able to correct Roberts? How many islamic countries have they travelled to or are they content with what some mallams say, that come to the US with the view of making the US an islamic state? They tell the West what they want to here.
Please Roberts, go ahead with this work. I know that the days of islam are numbered. Blood will be shed but all in all, islam will be the greatest loser.

Posted by: Nwachinemere

at November 10, 2006 8:01 AM

I was watching David Starkey - that noted historian - on Channel 4 last night. He was in debate with two muslims - one a scholar, the other a journalist - I think.

The point came up that there is nothing in the New Testament that exhorts people to kill each other. There is nothing in the New Testament that agrues that there is anything to gain by killing.

When the Muslims were read an extract from the Koran about killing, their argument was this: yes, but there are other tracts that say to not kill, it's not fair that you pick out the one that says you must.

This is the argument the use to justify themselves. And they totally miss the point that if there were no references to killing in the Koran - as there is none in the New Testament - then no one could be "unfair" about the way they read it. There could be no room for misinterpretation.

And if Jihad is totally to do with a misinterpretation of the Koran, then where are the others who interpret it peacefully? Moderates? Where are they?

I think that the Koran has it's own self-defence mechanism to sell to the Infidel while he is being beguiled just before his death as a pig or an ape, or his conversion. I think that Muslims understand this well, (or do not understand at all). Until there are moderate muslims, that is what I will believe.

Posted by: FREE LEE

at November 10, 2006 8:10 AM

Dr. Spencer, Ali just BLEW UP his whole argument as to why "death for apostasy will fall," in the comments section of Deans blog here.

I mentioned Asra Q. Nomani's article about the "4:34 dance" in the WAPO, and asked if wife beating was acceptible Islamic law because there is a clear Koranic mandate (unlike death for apostasy, which formed the crux of his argument). Ali then said this:

"there is one clear biographical 'proof' -- the life of Muhammad himself -- for why domestic violence is not permissible."

Amazing.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi

at November 10, 2006 10:17 AM

I suppose my perspective is different from that of many on this board. I've had Muslim friends and colleagues for almost 30 years now, so my introduction to Islam was very different than the 9/11 that eventually brought Islam to consciousness for most Americans.

Even in the early 1980s, however, Islam had multiple identities -- and an identity crises. At the offices of AI in Corte Madera, where a writing team put together an ESL course for Saudi ARAMCO, Muslim language from Morocco, Tunisian, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, east Africa and Europe "called in sick" every time the Saudi masters came to review our work. And we women were told we should wear long skirts and Victorian shirts. Of course, we rebelled, and I wore a nice wool suit cut mid-thigh and a V-neck silk shirt cut low, though it was certainly not risque by any sane person's standards. The Saudis were red-faced from rage, not embarrassment.

For almost all the Muslims I knew then and know now, a death sentence for apostasy would seem ridiculous, stupid and downright evil. The simple fact is that people change religions from Islam to other or Islam to NOTHING with complete immunity all over the world all the time.

But the other simple truth here is that radical Islamism is instituting shari'a law virtually unimpeded the world over. AND IT IS NEVER VOTED IN. IT IS IMPOSED IN EVERY CASE.

Last week Thailand caved and agreed to the possible institution of shari'a law in the south, a direct result of bombings.

In Indonesia, the GAM fought a 10-year battle for significant autonomy of the Aceh province from the collective governmnent and finally won it -- on the condition that the GAM leaders go into exile. They did. And immediately the radical Islamists filled the power vacuum and began instituting shari'a law. GAM leaders now are appealing to the Indonesian government ot stop it, as it's not wht they fought for.

In Pakistan the overlord government instituted shari'a law by fiat several decades ago and nearly tanked the government overnight.

In Iran, shari'a law was imposed by a revolution, not by the vote.

In Sudan, shari'a law was imposed by the NIF (Muslim Brotherhood) and genocide waged against the Nuba (animists), all moderate Muslims, and Christians with funds provided 100% by the Saudi government.

In Nigeria, the Saudis funded a "Taliban" in Zamfara province and imposed shari'a law by the sword, and since then northern provinces have caved one by one, instituting shari'a law not by vote, but by the sword. The goal there is to gain at least 19 provinces for shari'a, thereby tipping the majority and overnight taking all of the country's 36 provinces.

In Somalia, a coup by radical Islamists has imposed shari'a law by the sword (or pistol), not by vote.

The simple truth is this:

Although most of the Muslims in the world do not want shari'a law and have long since given up any desire to live in 7th-century Arabian desert culture ruled by 7th-century Arabian desert tribal mores and hudud laws, the imposition of shari'a anywhere -- including the new consitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which enshrine shari'a law with repugnancy clauses -- accomplishes that very reality.

Shari'a law brings with it either the reality or the very real possibility that ahadthia and Qur'anic verses that propose the death penalty for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy and other noncriminal offenses will be elevated above ****LITERALLY OPPOSITE**** teachings in the Qur'an, enabling thugs, criminals and the religiously insane to gain power over other, moderate Muslims, and people of all other religions.

Esmay tends to believe that the death penalty for apostasy will fail. Well, not if shari'a law is allowed to run things, because the IMPOSITION OF SHARI'A LAW IS EVERYWHERE A RADICAL ACT. IT IS NOT IMPOSED BY THE VOTE ANYWHERE, ONLY BY VIOLENCE.

And that violence itself is supported by quotable quotes from the Qur'an and the hadith.

And that is why Robert's point is so well-taken that until Muslims revile those very hadith and verses, some radical somewhere is going to use them.

I differ from many on this website in that I know so many Muslims who are involved in the Islamic feminist movement, in the theorizing of a "transcendental Islam" that removes the offending verses and hadith entirely or relegates them to a completely historical context. So I know this work is going on, and it is tough going and dangerous going. Many are jailed. Some are killed. All are threatened.

Knowing these people, I cannot subscribe to the theory that there is nothing going on. What I can subscribe to is that a tendency towards submission to government, cowardice, a supremacist attitude and lethargy born of hopelessness in the face of such a HUGE mess prevent many Muslims from acting. An argument last week with a so-called moderate Muslim defending his faith left me just screaming at him that I sick and tired of Muslims sitting in the United States sipping their lattes while Iraq goes to hell in a handbasket and it's my son and his friends that have to try to fix this mess that Muslims wouldn't fix for the 35 years that Saddam was killing Shi'as in Iraq. And that, to wit, the United States pays 92% of the child support for the Palestinian people while the stinking rich House of Sa'ud, whose 20,000 family members get about $200,000 a month "spending money" can only manage $25,000 a pop for the families of homicide bombers plus the cost of posters to make them rock stars. Meanwhile, Saudi dissidents quake at the thought that Israel might disappear as it is the only model of an abundant, democratic state within 5,000 nautical miles.

Therefore, Esmay and others can claim that there are anti-apostasy verses in the Qur'an, and they will be right about that. There are.

But no person on this planet who's not a Wahhabi is safe until the apostasy Qur'anic verses and hadith are removed from Islamic jurisprudence and until repugnancy clauses are removed from the consitutions of every country and province in the world.

If shari'a law is imposed anywhere, it is the radicals who are behind, and it is always accomplished by the sword, not by the vote.

And that is why Esmay's logic fails. Because it's not the moderate majority that go for this. It's the radicals, and their means of accomplishing it is terror.

And the result of it is the following:

(1) First and foremost, women always, always, always lose their rights. This is the basic selling point of all radical Islamism: Go with us, baby, and you'll get to control women completely.

(2) The control of the ulema becomes self-perpetuating because the invocation of repugancy clauses -- thou shalt make no law that is repugnant to Islam -- make it possible (as in Iran) for the "judicial review" of the land to revoke or block any law that would remove them from power. In Iran the Supreme Council revoked 1,400 progressive laws passed by the majlis during the tenure of Mohammad Khatami. They passed just one. And when it looked as if the Iranian people would sweep the entire majlis with progressives several years ago, they invalidated the "candidacies" of more than 3,500 politicians in Iran, turning out of office BY FIAT more than 1,400 elected members of the national government. And when the students at Tehran University protested and rioted, the secret police, on orders from the Supremem Council, took them out of their dormitory beds in the middle of the night, and their bodies -- burned and FLAYED -- were found over the following days in the middle of the street, in the doorway of the science building, lying on park benches and the like. Unsurprisingly, the riots stopped.

(3) Journalists lose all right to practice their craft. In Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Somalia, Tunisia (where radicals have killed 100,000 moderate Muslims in the last two decades) TV and newspaper writers and editors have been charged with apostasy, jailed and tortured, or killed without trial.

(4) And finally, all religious rights of non-Muslims are abrogated or completely destroyed.

And to that last point, it's not just non-Muslims. Under Saudi Wahhabi rules all non-Wahhabi Sunnis, all Shi'as, and all Sufis (Sunni or Shi'a) are apostates and live and sometimes die under the very verse that Robert quotes. In Iran, stronghold of Twelver (Madhi) Shi'ism, all Fiver Shi'as and Sevener Shi'as, all Sunnis, all Sufis are apostates.

Muslims always the first to die, and they die in MASSIVE NUMBERS. Tens of thousands of them in Tunisian, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigera, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Yesterday's newspaper estimates that 150,000 people in Iraq have been killed by Sunni insurgents since 2003, and all we can hear from our press over here is that Abu Ghraib is a big problem. Yeah, it's a problem, but IEDs targeting soccer-playing Shi'a kids might just be a bigger problem than that.

So, on balance I would say two things:

First, Esmay needs to get a grip. This problem isn't going away because moderate Muslims don't believe in death for apostasy. It's going to go away with the eight madabhs declare the ahadith and Qur'anic verses that call for death for apostasy to be invalidated. And they're going to be of ONE MIND about that, and get off this business of generating eight to twenty different models for shari'a law. And it's also going to take the reversal and removal of every repugnancy clause in every constitution in the world. And the fact that the United States supported governments that instituted consitutions bearing repugnancy clauses -- BOTH OF THEM INSTITUTED ON ZALMAY KHALILIZAD'S WATCH -- should be cause for tremendous concern by Americans, who should watch the government closely for failures of this kind. I'll believe Esmay is correct when people stop dying, and not before.

And second, Robert and I have a disagreement about moderate Islam. I am aware of too many people working on this problem, most out of sight and certainly not in Western view -- some had died but some are still living -- and their efforts to move Islamic law by excision of verses or arguing legal battles on the basis of transcendental verses of fatawa (see al-Sistani's pro-woman fatawa issued to the Shi'a Council of India last week, which immediately implemented it for all Shi'a woman -- HUGE that one!) continue, at peril to good people who fight this battle, and whose existence is sometimes simply denied. They deserve better than that.

Esmay is wrong. Robert is right, but I will be happy if can sometimes acknowledge those who put their lives at risk to try to solve this problem.

It is not fair to women like Konca Kouris, the Islamic feminist who was taken by the Turkish Hezbollah "Taliban" and tortured for 38 days and then killed (like Hitler, Hezbollah likes to film its tortures and murders).

It's not fair to jounralists like Khalifa Nagab of Afghanistan, thrown into jail for two years for advocating a more gender-just shari'a law in the NEW Afghanistan. [Do you know what they do to women in these prisons???????????]

It's not fair to Al-Domaini, Al-Hamid, and other Saudi dissidents to forget the lashings and imprisonment -- and the withdrawal of diabetes medication on the hope they'd die before their trials.

It's not fair to the many who have stood up, and the many who continue -- and on whose courage hang the hopes of millions who depend upon them -- to deny their existence. They stand small, but vocal, against incredibly dangerous imams and mullahs and insanely repressive governments wielding threats of beheadings and amputations and lashings (in the thousands with metal cables) and the gruesome male and female sexual abuse known to occur daily in Saudi and other prison as deterrents.

Could you do it? I don't know if I could?

And that is not meant to discount the courage Western pundits have in demanding change in Islamic law and jurisprudence. It is valid. It is necessary. And it very productively keeps on the table the issues that must be dealt with.

But do not forget, please, to acknowledge those Muslims who have already left their blood on this battlefield, who languish tortured in prisons, who do the careful legal and theological work to beat the shari'a judges at their own game.

Pipes is right when he says that only moderate Muslims can solve this problem. So I would simply ask two things:

That we not forget or discount those who do the work that will make ***US*** as well as their own people safe.

In doing what he is doing now Esmay is defending radical Islam.

[Sorry about what I know will be many typois. I have NO TIME to really be doing this right now!]

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at November 10, 2006 10:20 AM

Bravo, Robert! What can thinking people expect from mindless vacuum brains stupid enough to worship a backward DEATH WORSHIPPING Moon thought process named Islam or Muslim or Mohammadism or whatever, stupidly worshipping only a figment of reality. This stupidity has no redeeming qualities, not even decency, and at best is merely a DIM REFLECTION OF CHRISTIANITY just as the moon [Islam] is a reflection of the Sun [Christsianity]. Talk about "looking through a glass darkly"!

Posted by: LilOleMissy

at November 10, 2006 10:43 AM

Jimmy, nice job on catching that. You are right in that Eteraz will be dancing soon. How does one claim that the Koran is the absolute standard at one point and then deny it is absolute the next?

As I pointed out earlier, when a religion has been around for over a thousand years, it's unlikely that someone is going to find a new argument against the standard interpretation.

Posted by: Terrahawk

at November 10, 2006 11:02 AM

Robert,
As much as we love your scholary responses to Dean Esmay and his ilk, you really should stop responding to this bumb. As you just pointed out, you know "what level" they are playing from. Given Dean's small and i mean very small...um...audience, really what is the point of arguing with him?

Posted by: Avatar

at November 10, 2006 11:55 AM

Morgaan Sinclair - Very interesting and encouraging. Thank you.

Posted by: Josephine

at November 10, 2006 12:02 PM

Robert,

First let me say I am impressed with - if not in awe of - your scholarly approach and amazing temperance and patience with the likes of Dean Esmay and his "poster children." That effort leads me to ask you a question.

Are you wasting your valuable time responding to them?

These are people who have rejected, and will continue to reject, reality. They have settled upon an indefensible position and no amount of reference back to reality is going to make a dent in their thinking or behavior. They have rejected the methodology of referring back to reality in order to determine the truth. In other words, they cannot be convinced.

If your efforts are intended to sway the visitors to Esmay's blogsite, there is always a chance you will be successful. However, consider that those who regularly read and post on Esmay's site probably fit the same mold as Esmay himself: people who want a specific view of Islam to prevail in spite of any amount of evidence to the contrary. Such people, methodologically rejecting a rational and evidence-oriented approach to finding the truth, simply cannot be swayed. In this regard they are just like the 9/11 "Truthers" who, rejecting the (dare I say "obvious"?) mountain of evidence available to them - including that of their own eyes - have developed a highly convoluted set of misintepretations of the facts to fit their own self-deluded view of that horrific day, in an attempt to somehow "prove" that the 9/11 attacks were not executed by Islamic terrorists. Such people are not open to reason.

If your debunking of the likes of Esmay and his poster children is intended to reach those few still open to reason, then I must applaud you for your focus, relentless pursuit in balancing the scales, and seemingly boundless energies. You have performed an amazing amount of near-flawless work to reach a few people that might still listen, and I am in awe of your efforts.

Knowing you must be, as you said, weary of having to respond, please accept my assurances that you don't have to respond to the likes of Esmay and company. They are beneath contempt and require no response.

Your entire website and your published works speak for themselves; those wishing to learn will read, and learn. Those wishing to hold on to their preconceived notions of Islam will not listen and no amount of referring to facts will have an impact upon them.

Please try to give yourself a break from Esmay and his poster kids. (They are poster kids for "Self-Delusion Syndrome," ("SDS") a term I just made up to describe their approach to life.) Your printed work and your regular on-target anti-Jihad, anti-Dhimmitude posts are getting the job done. Spectacularly.

Answering Esmay and his SDS kids only fuels their website(s). If you ignore them they will be left talking only to their moonbat followers, and that is what they want anyway: to preach to like-minded SDSers who will refer to reality only to twist facts to suit their own unchallengeable beliefs.

You are a good man, Bob. One of the best. Don't let these SDS kids drain your energies. Your work is needed in the very long-term battle against Islamofacism and Jihad.

Sir, I salute you.

-- Cincinnatus

Posted by: Cincinnatus

at November 10, 2006 12:30 PM

Thanks, Morgaan Sinclair, for your comments. It conjures up images of the dozen menacing "minority" grasshoppers lording it over the thousands of scared "majority" ants in the movie "A Bug's Life". The anti-sharia Muslims (if they are indeed the majority) might do well to mass-rally behind the "Fliks" in their midst (i.e. the moderate Muslim reformers) who risk "getting their heads squished" by the "Hoppers" (i.e. the pro-sharia thugs), if they ever hope to see the free, tolerant ummah they claim should exist in the "true Islam" they love so much.

Posted by: yadayada

at November 10, 2006 1:10 PM

Responsible Muslims like Eteraz are trying to lead the way, and we ought to support them.

If Eteraz were responsible, he would seek to expose the evil of Islam. However, he is doing no such thing. Instead, by acting as an Islam apologist who writes seemingly coherent (for the naïve Westener) pieces showing Islam in a favourable light it doesn't deserve, he may distract people from seeing what should be obvious, namely the fact that Islam is an unreformable and intrinsically evil religion. That, in my opinion, is irresponsible.

Posted by: anonymous

at November 10, 2006 1:12 PM

That, in my opinion, is irresponsible.
Posted by: anonymous

The word is “profitable” stupid infidels pay these clowns to lie and give them a false sense of security. They are not spewing these lies for free.

Posted by: Ronin

at November 10, 2006 1:19 PM

For Josephine: Thank you ...

For Yadayada (love the name) ...

The bottom line is this: Moderate Muslims en masse have abandoned the people who have stood up for them. And scared is no excuse. If my son can fight for the freedom and self-determination of Muslim people in Afghanistan, only to be betrayed for a gutless and clueless State Department, then Muslims can do the same.

It's interesting that the son Ali Alyami, a Saudi dissident, is fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq while the sons of American Shi'a are completely content to let native American, mostly Christian troops fight the battle for their future.

While I am delighted to stand firm with Muslim reformist and progressive friends, I am furious with these Muslim "pundits" who defend the very verses and ahaditha which are used to terrorist their own friends, families and co-religionists -- which apologists like Stephen Schwartz tell us that implementation of shari'a law in Canada (and Iraq, too!) is just fine.

Muslims who defend this should not be looked upon for guidance, whether they appear on the Leftist, apologist, appeasement side or have somehow, amazingly, slipped into the ranks of supposed neo-cons.

Pipes' assertion at the OCON Conference, at which Robert also spoke incredibly eloquently, answered a question of mine by saying that the PRINCIPAL LITMUS TEST FOR A MODERATE MUSLIM IS WHETHER THEY ADVOCATE OR WOULD EVEN TOLERATE THE IMPOSITION OF SHARI'A LAW.

This is a question I suggest we ask Esmay, Schwartz, Karen Armstrong, et al.

For John Esposite the question should be this, and we shouldn't listen to another word from him until he answers it: DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT MAKE A SECRET SHAHADA TO WAHABBI ISLAM ON ONE OR YOUR TRIPS TO SAU'DI ARABIA.

If so, he should immediately register with the State Department as an agent of a foreign power.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at November 10, 2006 1:43 PM

Eteraz continues to dig a hole for himself here:

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/straight-up-quranic-attack-on-apostasy/

It’s kind of absurd that one single hadith — which was not even compiled until three hundred years after the death of the Prophet — is being used to shut down two God’s will as expressed in the Quran.

Now, how is Eteraz going to avoid the 4:34 and other verses? In a sense, every hadith should be discounted, since IIRC, all of the hadith's were compiled about the same time. At best they are related stories that may or may not be true. And based on Eteraz's logic, should be thrown out since they are so old.

The Koranic verse he uses is a stretch to say that it denies the death of apostates.

Posted by: Terrahawk

at November 10, 2006 2:09 PM

Jimmy the Dhimmi's find is important (see his post above):

Quoting Eteraz re: 4:34:

"there is one clear biographical 'proof' -- the life of Muhammad himself -- for why domestic violence is not permissible."

Eteraz is trying to have it both ways:

1) re: killing of apostates, Eteraz appeals to the Qur'an to outweigh Muhammad's words in his "biography" (Sunna)

2) re: wife-beating, Eteraz appeals to the "biography" (Sunna) of Mohammed to outweigh the Qur'an.

Eteraz is thus trying to construct a Westernized Islam (an Islam that comports to modern Western human rights) by cherry-picking his standards for Islamic authority.

Posted by: remote_control

at November 10, 2006 4:23 PM

"Eteraz is thus trying to construct a Westernized Islam (an Islam that comports to modern Western human rights) by cherry-picking his standards for Islamic authority."

As much as these guys "cherry-pick", they could open up pie-houses.

I prefer apple pie, myself.
Not the kind of apples these guys toss, though.
Not the golden ones with the κ on 'em.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at November 10, 2006 5:30 PM

I prefer apple pie, myself.

And Islam cannot be as American as apple pie, since we cannot tell which of the supposedly good apples in Islam are not really bad.

Bye, bye, Miss Arabian Pie,
Rode the camel to Mohammed
But Mohammed was dry...

Posted by: remote_control

at November 10, 2006 6:07 PM

Robert,

Excellent piece with very cogent argumanents by both pepole's theories/ worldviews.

I can sense that I am in way over my head with the other contributers here, forgive me because my comments are raher simplistic.

I have firmly concluded that Western civilzation and Islam are in an irrevsable fight to the death. I believe that all the brilliant rhetoric in the world cannot change this, although many minds (mostly in the West) can be opened to ignorance of the teachings of the Imams across the world.

But my outlook remains very pessimistic, and I think that drastic and unprecented attacks on Islam is the only way to break their paradigm shift: Islam must be declared a guerilla war organization by some brave Western leaders (if there are any!) Their protection of 'freedom of religion' must be taken away: they have used this to grow population in West, while teaching their young people in the Madrases that their purpose in life is to convert people or kill them. I do not see 'moderate Islam' as even a possibility: In short, Islam should be viewed as a global movement of very dedicated, patient, and sophisticated gurrllia warfare.

So, assuming that my layman's wolrdview ps true, how do we fight global jihad? Occupation and conventional warfare are useless, and counterproductive on many levels. The Islamists must be fought on terms favorable to the West, and shocking and terrifying to the Jihad warriors.

How do you do this with so many willing to die to cause mass casulties which will inevitably cripple the West. Attack what is dear to them, on a large scale with no warning. Mecca.... Civil uprising against Muslims who live in Europe and the US? In the long run I see an even bleaker future if this shift in thinking and drasitc attacks is not adopted by the West and its leaders. It is the only response that migth break the spirit of the Muslims and prevent WMD attacks in the US and elsewhere, attacks that could permanently put Westerm amd secular Democracies' exitence in jeapordy.

Posted by: Raphael of Nevada, USA

at November 10, 2006 6:34 PM

-remote_control,

The West and islam, apples and oranges?

Oranges don't make good pie filling.

Good for peeling and squeezing, though.
Peel islam naked and squeeze it dry.
Problem with that, however, is that mohammedan orange juice is mostly pulp.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at November 10, 2006 6:48 PM

Eisenhund,

Apples and oranges
Picked cherries
72 raisins
The "word salad" of Moderate Muslims (I wonder if Eteraz admires the great Saladin...)

What does this add up to? Unfortunately, still in the West a PC fruit cocktail...

Posted by: remote_control

at November 10, 2006 7:58 PM

Heh...

Apples in my pie,
Orange with my chocolate,
A cherry on my sundae,
Raisins in my oatmeal cookies.
Salad before my steak.

Separated and paired with something else, they're good.

Keep the fruitcup off the menu.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it's impossible to digest.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at November 10, 2006 8:14 PM

Morgaan Sinclair said

But the other simple truth here is that radical Islamism is instituting shari'a law virtually unimpeded the world over. AND IT IS NEVER VOTED IN. IT IS IMPOSED IN EVERY CASE.

While I enjoyed the posting, this seems to be a restating of the "small minority of extremists who have hijacked the vast majority of moderates" canard.

You say "radical Islamism" is instituting shari'a law all over the world. "Radical Islamism" is not some amorphous blob going around imposing shari'a on a helpless population.

Obviously, it is people who are instituting shari'a. So, who are these people? How many of them are there? If there are so few of them, and if their ideas are so unsupported by the "vast majority of moderates", then why doesn't anyone stop them?

I don't believe that "they" are all Wahhabists, I don't believe that there are only a few of them, and I don't believe that the majority of Muslims disagree with their goals of a global Caliphate and shari'a being the law of the land.

Posted by: special_guest

at November 10, 2006 8:30 PM

Misfortunately, there are some with a muslim background living in the western free society that spend most of their time fooling themselves into the dream of a peaceful religion. What better place to live in delusion? For example, America, the land of opportunity, where someone can recreate themselves into anything. You can be one thing on Monday and another on Friday. Freedom of religion is also allowed; including the phoney kinds. It would be perfect for everyone if those that practiced Islam were not only peaceful minded, but also engaged in the kinder more gentler interpretations of the koran. Look around the world today and see if that is happening or if the opposite is dominating. About every country is infested with radicalism on jihad. Why are we discussing apostasy issues or instructions about 'to kill or not to kill' from a pagan god? Its precisely because the duplicity of the islamic book's inner workings unravels whatever is necessary for the follower. The argument can always end with a yes or no and sometimes a maybe. It's a duplicitous book. What is insulting is when 'moderate muslims' arrogate that because you don't have islamic study or understanding of arabic that you cannot read the koran and comprehend what is meant. With this implied it certainly excludes the mind of a child doesn't it; especially a child that speaks any other language than arabic? Allah doesn't want children in paradise? The result is that the core message then is deemed too complicated from a purportedly 'peaceful loving god' and is left to be argued and twisted for anyones own agenda; including a holy war against your fellow human beings to conquer and dominate. The problem is the message itself. Its important to get the truth about the message while we still have free speech to discuss it. Thanks to Mr. Spencer's book the truth is out there. Revealing this truth about the message is painful for those that have recreated their own version of the koran to sustain their prophet because the truth about Mohammed isn't a jolly sight. It had to be altered and then guarded with myths of sacredness to survive it's introduction into the civilized world of the None Believers. Now everyone is understanding the exposure of Islam except the ones that are grasping for a hopeful reform and are rewriting the Koran and Hadiths along the way, recreating Mohammed. (Identical to Mohammed recreating Allah for his agendas}

Thank you Mr. Spencer for your time you give on your website and your work. You're one of the most respected minds on the web and we are very fortunate to have access to the information that you share here and in your book.

Posted by: Happy_Human

at November 10, 2006 10:10 PM

Special Guest:

But you might want to consider two things:

(1) It's never voted in. So how's it getting put in? Just two ways: political buyouts and violence against the local popualtion.

(2) Pipes and Woolsey in the last three weeks have stated the same figure of 10-15% radical, 35% solidly anti-Islamist, and 50% sitting in the middle like knots on a rotting log. It's what happens with that 50% that is going to decide if we have to fight them all. But perhaps declaring them radicals when they are, at this point, nothing of the sort is leaving them no place to go in the coming fight. That is not wise.

Basically, I trust Pipes' and Woolsey's excellent research more than you assertion based on evidence you either don't have or have not presented.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at November 10, 2006 10:24 PM

-Morgaan Sinclair,

It's one thing for mohammedans to feel cornered. However, they need to be disabused of the notion that that gives them the right to be violent about it. Americans are called all kinds of vile things from people all over the place, but one doesn't see groups of American citizens taking it upon themselves to form cells, running around causing havoc. Mohammedan arrogance and narcissism are the cause of the islamic problem, not what we call them. I've been called names around here, but it doesn't even occur to me to hunt anyone down and cut their head off for it. Mohammedans live in a world where irrational, baseless pride, supernatural fiat, and a silly, paranoid belief that "infidels" have nothing better to do than plot against them tell them they are allowed to do anything they like to feel better about themselves. Their inability to take criticism, rather than the criticism itself, and the assurances of their madman prophet and his made-up god that they are better than the rest of us are the problems.

God help them if the US got the attitude that so many mohammedans have: "They all hate us and think we're bad anyway, let's give 'em something BIG to hate us for!".
Islam would end overnight.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at November 10, 2006 11:27 PM

The disagreement between Special Guest and Morgaan Sinclair above does not matter on one important level, the level of pragmatism: We cannot tell the difference between the Muslims who are harmless and the Muslims who are either lying or will become "activated" at some indeterminate time in the future.

Therefore, the rational approach is to treat all Muslims as equally suspect, until such time as we have a clear and unequivocal demonstration of forceful will on the part of the allegedly good Muslims that they are going to identify and neutralize their bad apples.

Posted by: remote_control

at November 10, 2006 11:28 PM

Remote Control:

To confuse matters even further, notice this:

When bin Laden calls for American Muslims to hit the streets and kill Americans, they do not.

When Nasrallah calls for Israeli Arabs to rise up and kill the Jews, they do not.

When Gema'a al-Islamiyah calls for people to rise up in masses against Americans and Australians, they do not. [However, last year in Indonesia 2,000 people stormed the prison where the Bali murderers were held and tried to kill them.]

So, we ask them to hit the streets and protest Al Qaeda, and they do nothing. Al Qaeda asks them to hit the streets and kill Americans, and they do nothing.

One Muslim friend said to me that the INABILITY TO RESPOND, the lethargy, the sense of powerlessness, the sense that it is somebody else's responsibility, that somebody else has authority and they do not, the timidity, and submissiveness itself is practically a disease. This frozen inability to take responsibility, combined with the rage of those willing to do anything to another human being to get his way, will bring Islam down.

Trying to rouse the moderates is like trying to wake the dead. But those who ARE awake are a wonder to behold, and among them I have seen remarkable courage.

What worries me is that the radicals appear to be winning the propaganda war overseas, thanks much to the American media and the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, wholly owned subsidiaries of Al Qaeda.

So the moderates are slowly being pulled into the maelstrom that will drown them ... and us. Because the problem needs to be contained before the half who are not fighting as yet decide to throw in their lot with the bad guys.

I am hoping this happens before Al Qaeda succeeds in a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on US soil, because once that happens, there WILL be a nuclear response or a HUGE air assault that kills half a million people, and then it's going to be all she wrote.

P.S. An example of how bad the problem is with the media is this: The media still are banging on Abu Ghraib and yesterday the Iraqi government released an estimate that the insurgents had killed probably 150,000 people in Iraq in the last two years.

That's Muslim-on-Muslim violence. Why is that not news?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at November 11, 2006 12:21 AM

This is too easy; exposing more of Ali Eteraz's wishful delusions:

...I only post on his (Esmay's) site because a) he has more traffic...

Website Ranking by Traffic:
70) Jihad Watch 28695 visits/day
231) Dean's World - - 4851 visits/day
link

Posted by: Xero G

at November 11, 2006 1:22 AM

I have no desire to start a flame-war or even a testy disagreement with Morgaan. But Daniel Pipe's optimism of the likelihood of an Islamic Reformation have been commented on many times here at JW by those wiser than me. I respect him and agree with most of his writings, but don't share his optimism. You do, that's fine.

And what of former CIA-chief Woolsey's solid evidence for a 2-to-1 margin of anti-jihad to pro-jihad? It probably has the same solidity as the evidence of WMD's in Iraq, or the evidence that Iraqis would welcome us with rose-petals and leap headlong into democracy. The track record of the Middle East Experts fails to impress.

It's true, I don't have a spy agency at my disposal, but I do have a television and a computer. The evidence that the number of pro-jihadists is higher than 10% of Muslims is on the nightly news every night, in almost every continent of the world. Not good enough?

How about the Pew Research Center. They have these poll results which show that 88% of Jordanians support attacks against civilian targets. By contrast, "only" 44% of our good allies, the Pakistanis, agree. 62% of Turks and Pakistanis prefer shari'a over democracy. Only 10% of Indonesians have no confidence in Osama Bin Laden to do the right thing in world affairs.

Or this poll by pro-"Palestinian" Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC) shows that 66% of "Palestinians" support the murder of unarmed Israeli citizens. 51% of them desire the complete destruction of Israel.

It looks to me like there are 10% of moderates, and 60-80% supporting the jihad.

When it comes to Muslims living in the West, I agree with remote_control, that the Muslims have not given us any way to differentiate the "radicals" from the "moderates', and we must protect ourselves accordingly.

Posted by: special_guest

at November 11, 2006 1:22 AM

I didn't type the link correctly above, should be; http://truthlaidbear.com/ecotraffic.php

Perhaps Ali Eteraz also has unique theories of the meaning of algebra...since it was invented by the Arabs? I did modern math and found Jihad Watch had 592% more traffic than Dean's World.

Posted by: Xero G

at November 11, 2006 1:33 AM

Special_Guest.

I tend to prefer people who can walk and chew chewing gum at the same time.

Therefore, my preference is that we (1) take a strong tack on resistance to radical Islamism. AND that (2) we support those people and institutions that promote reform and progressive Islam.

To the first:

(a) Close the borders

(b) Stop all immigration and visitors visas from countries that support or even ALLOW madrassahs preaching hate against the United STates

(d) Make foreign countries responsible for any material coming into the United States that is harmful to use. One infraction: no trade for a month. Materials that can be used in bomb-making of any kind: no trade for 10 years.

(e) Pass laws that mandate the conversion of every automobile in the United States for cellulosic ethanol (NOT ethanol-85 from corn) at a cost of $39-40 a car. Mandate the growing of switch grass as the rotatio