| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why moderate Muslims have little or no traction in the Islamic world -- in, of all places, the New York Times, in an interview about her new book Infidel.
Does this point sound familiar?
Q. Have you seen any ideology coming from within Islam that gives young Muslims a sense of purpose without the overlay of militancy?A. They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply — they’re reactive and they don’t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing.
Posted by Robert at February 4, 2007 9:03 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
This has been said, repeatedly, by Robert Spencer from the very beginning of this site, in October 2003. It was insisted upon by him before the site came into existence, in articles, books, and speeches. It is not a complicated point. It should be obvious. Islam is a powerful, coherent, all-embracing Belief System. It rests on several texts: the Qur'an, which is the uncreated (that is, it has always existed, forever) and immutable word of God. Any internal contradictions are, through the interpretive doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation, settled in favor of the later, much harsher verses. The full meaning of the Qur'an can be gleaned from what Muhammad said and did, as recorded in stories written down, the hadith (or "ahadith"), about what he said, and did, and even when he was silent. Those stories, the tens or hundreds of thousands of them, were collected, and studied, and their isnad-chains )(A told B who told C etc. -- well, who was C, and B, and A, that make us trust, or not trust, their versions?) examined this way adn that, that the hadith-scholars or muhaddithin could finally assign different levels of "autheniticy" and winnow down the vast number of hadith to those deemed "authentic." Of all the collections of Hadith, six are deemed most reliable, and two in particular - those of Bukhari and Muslim -- deemed authoritative. When someone, for example Karen Armstrong, quotes such a hadith, in support of her crazed view of Islam, for example that Muhammad returned from a war to home saying he had come from "the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad" (i.e., the "Jihad" of mastering himself at home), few stop to ask -- and Karen Armstrong clearly has no idea --as to where that hadith appears, and what level of authenticity has been assigned to it by Bukhari, by Muslim.
This excerpt from the interview simply makes clear what all those who have left Islam know perfectly well, for what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says here would be said, has been said, by Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and hundreds of others, and thought by tens or hundreds of thousands of apostates who have gained their mental freedom, and possibly thereby the ability to lead not double-lives riddled with deception and self-deception, among others who are now fellow Infidels, and no longer those enemy Infidels from whom one must, at all costs, hide the reality of Islam. And it has been said by Robert Spencer whose perfecty straightforward view is immune to the concerns -- vanity of some, desire to keep getting well-paid audiences by others, or an inability to come to grips with the problem because of this or that personable Muslim whom one knows, likes, cannot bear to alienate, or any number of other reasons, including careerism of every sort. By now visitors to this site are able to distinguish the unswayable from those who were swayed long ago, with their their book deals, and their lecture fees, and their think-tank or university appointments that must be kept, and those donors to one's empire-building who must under no conditions be scared off.
And that is why there are so very few, outside of the apoostates, on whom one can thoroughly rely.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 4, 2007 9:30 AM
Let's face it, Hugh, we live in a phony world. Sure, Robert has said all of the same things Hirsi Ali has, at least as long and emphatically, but...and let me be non-PC here..Robert is not a woman of color.
I'm afraid the New Duranty Times is going to give a lot for credence to Ms. Ali for that very reason. Those freaking numbskulls...
at February 4, 2007 9:41 AM
That's why building mosques in the west is counterproductive to integration.
With the mosques come the imams. With the imams comes the manual for religious warfare - the quran.
And with the manual in hand this warfare - jihad - starts. The more muslims are encouraged to live by and with their religion the more desastrous are the consequences for the rest of the society.
There is no moderation in islam. There is only islam, submission to islam or war. It's an all or nothing thing.
at February 4, 2007 9:46 AM
People don't leave anything to go to nothing. They must have a place to go to. If there are no places to go to then there is only Jihad. "Moderate Muslims" are like battered wives with no shelters. That's why Islam must dominate. Any equality with other belief-systems cannot be tolerated by Islam.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 9:53 AM
the overlay of militancy
The overlay. The substrate. The it ain't quite really real.
Howabout the sinew. The muscle. The essence.
The NYT is an awful newspaper, the ultimate coagulation of intellectual dishonesty. Finishing school ganglia inter-wrapped with finishing school ganglia, a perfect stupidity. Harvard Yale. Go team. Rah.
To wit: They're still asking questions about Islam. How dumb it that.
Duh.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 4, 2007 10:01 AM
filibuster: You are right on the money!
But Ali Hirsi is also wrong:
"...the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith..."
It was meant for exactly this context: To make the world islamic, nothing else, otherwise it doesn't make sense.
We moved on, but THEY never will. Change the 'immutable Koran?' A Muhammean kills for much much less than that.http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/04/afp-sux-mobs-of-whites-attacked-lebanese-australians/
at February 4, 2007 10:07 AM
"We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing." (from above)
The problem with Islam is Islam itself. Like Communism, it is fatally flawed from within and can't be "reformed" without destroying it in the process. Therefore, that is the only solution. The "reformers" of Islam, like Gorbachev, may eventually find that without force and the threat of force to hold it togeather, Islam cannot stand and will collapse under the weight of its' own bile and contradictions. Let us hope that will happen as history will take a happier, brighter turn than it seems fated to right now.
at February 4, 2007 10:30 AM
About as PC as the MSM gets, but Mr Spencer's 'The Truth about Muhamed' has gotten itself reviewed in the Observer. And a good - if short - review at that.
We are getting there folks.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005391,00.html
at February 4, 2007 10:30 AM
The excerpt above is the best part of the interview. Elsewhere the answers are not quite all that Hirsi Ali wanted to say, or could have said. For example, she is asked about the differences between Muslims in Canada and those in Europe. She mentions that the Muslims in Canada all speak perfect English, and that they do not shout down with quite the same vehemence and violence those who oppose them. Had she more time, she might have added that 1) in many cases in Canada Muslims have shouted down and threatened speakers -- twice at Concordia University alone and 2) if Muslims in North America are better at English this may merely mean that they are better able to propagandize and to mislead -- cf. Tariq Ramadan's knowledge of French simply making him a more dangerous opponent, in all his slitheriness (a slitheriness that seems to have impressed the impressionable, and less-and-less-impressive, Ian Buruma, in the same issue of The Times, but since he managed before he started to display his self-assured misundersanding of Islam, he'd already locked in a job from Leon Botstein so he can be just as misleading, and misled himself, as he wishes) and 3) if Muslim behavior is here and there toned down, in Canada, or the U.S., it is a function of realizing that there are too few Muslims, as yet, compared to Western Europe, and the Infidels, as yet, relatively uncowed and, in the United States at least, where Infidels are much more ready to use violence, thank god, than they are in Western Europe, possibly permanently un-cowable.
And the business of the Qur'an and Hadith needing to be changed -- well, I don't think for one minute that Hirsi Ali believes they can be. She was simply throwing that out, and the interviewer did not choose to follow up. She knows perfectly well that they cannot be changed (this is not surmise, this is based on more intimate knowledge). She leaves it up to you to draw your conclusions.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 10:32 AM
Here's the room for maneuver. The koran may be immutable, fixed forever in heaven, but the "koran" we have here on earth is not. It's a copy, and an imperfect one. How else can it have "abrogations". Does God change his word from minute to minute? Hardly. What we have is a corrupted version, written down long after the original revelations to Mo , and filtered thru several generations of fallible human memory. Surely there were other "Satanic" verses. If Mo were fooled once, he might have been fooled other times. And then there are the transmitters -- who's to say their memories were not tamperd with by Satan? How can one chain of transmission include tales that others do not?
Back to the abrogations. The koran is there in heaven, uncreated and eternal. Therefore, both the verse and its abrogation are co-equal. There is no logical way to choose between them. Maybe both are Satanic.
These are a few questions I'd be asking a jihadi were I a "moderate moslem". They are similar to questions that have been asked of Christianity and the New Testament, and which Christian scholars have had to deal with.
at February 4, 2007 10:40 AM
"Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing."
Money Shot. In the NYT.
Which why there is no such thing as a moderate community, because while their are millions of kind and decent and moderate people who are Muslim, there is no moderate Islam.
I told the NYT country chief of a major country last year that they were not living up to their responsibilities in reporting about Islam last year. He looked at me like I was a nut.
Shame on you Karen Armstrong and others who have given a pass the least progressive ideology known to our present day.
Shame on those who write Ms. Ali off as a "conservateive" for articulating classic Liberal values.
It suprises me not at all that an African born woman would lead on thia issue as she does not suffer from the liberal racism it takes to see Muslims as poor helpless victims not to be taken at their word or held responsible for their actions.
If the MSM lives up to its tradition, I say better late than never, but there is no question that if Muslims were not thought as blameless and helpless minorities, if Islam was thought of as a white man`s religion, the MSM would have been on it long ago.
Posted by: tokyobk at February 4, 2007 10:59 AM
Another problem with Islam, and a clue to why it may be embraced by so many, is that it feeds man's base passions. It is much easier in this hard work-a-day world we live in to not have to check yourself when anger rises to the surface and you'd like to lash out at someone. If your religion says it's okay to hit your wife in the face if she doesn't cook your dinner properly or if she's not interested in having sex, it makes it much easier for you not to control your temper, give into it, give her a good beating and then sleep like a baby because Allah said it was O-tay! You don't even have to use the old concept of "the devil made me do it." It also teaches men in Islam that they can have any material thing they want, and if they are unsatisfied or if they are embarassed by some bad behavior on their own part, they can blame it on the woman or the infidel and let them be punished in his place.
The thing I'm having trouble with is why any woman would be an advocate for it, unless she really believes that killing her kids or allowing them to kill themselves will get her a ticket to heaven. If so then she is just as selfish as the men.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 4, 2007 11:05 AM
In the past couple of days here in the UK we've had the Times, the Mail and the Telegraph - all leading members of the MSM - seriously dissing Islam. Today we even have a good review of Mr Spencer's book in The Observer, another leading member of the MSM.
Now it seems the NYT, yet another leading member of the MSM doing the same.
I see progress ... just gotta get al-Beeb on board now.
Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at February 4, 2007 11:13 AM
"Another problem with Islam, and a clue to why it may be embraced by so many, is that it feeds man's base passions. It is much easier in this hard work-a-day world we live in to not have to check yourself when anger rises to the surface and you'd like to lash out at someone. If your religion says it's okay to hit your wife in the face if she doesn't cook your dinner properly or if she's not interested in having sex, it makes it much easier for you not to control your temper, give into it, give her a good beating and then sleep like a baby because Allah said it was O-tay! You don't even have to use the old concept of "the devil made me do it." It also teaches men in Islam that they can have any material thing they want, and if they are unsatisfied or if they are embarassed by some bad behavior on their own part, they can blame it on the woman or the infidel and let them be punished in his place.
The thing I'm having trouble with is why any woman would be an advocate for it, unless she really believes that killing her kids or allowing them to kill themselves will get her a ticket to heaven. If so then she is just as selfish as the men.
Isabellathecrusader,
You said it beautifully.
The bottom line is that all men are naturally inclined to sinfulness. We hold ourselves in check by our belief in a higher power that mandates certain moral standards that we must hold ourselves to in order to be moral human beings.
Islam has turned everything up-side-down. It caters to mans lower nature. In Islam, good is evil, and evil is good.
As to Muslim Women, they are a testament to the power of brainwashing and fear.
at February 4, 2007 11:37 AM
If we the few that are preoccupied with this clash of civilizations are so clear about what we are facing, then we must be clear on our course of action. We must support an immediate redeployment of our troops into an independent Kurdistan, and let the Shiite murder the Sunni and viceversa. Let the whole middle east join in the festivities, and maybe even our good friends in France, Spain or Italy will get to feel the love.
cheers
at February 4, 2007 11:39 AM
"Here's the room for maneuver. The koran may be immutable, fixed forever in heaven, but the "koran" we have here on earth is not."
That's your opinion, obviously not theirs.
at February 4, 2007 11:42 AM
"the J.W. watch people are here with such debtication..."
-- from a posting above
A slip, forsooth, but how right you are.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 11:46 AM
So we have a moderate Muslim, at long last, in a very leftist publication. That is good. Identifying the problem is a necessary first step, however, I agree with Hugh. I don't think she believes reformation of Islam will actually be achieved and supports that belief by offering no solutions.
Posted by: awake at February 4, 2007 11:47 AM
"Let's face it, Hugh, we live in a phony world".-JD
You bet. And Muslims make a religion of it. At the Times, its a lifestyle.
The truth is that an honest Muslim would say, "Look, you can't change the will-to-domination inherent in Islam via its doctrines, you can't ask us to really accept other belief-systems as equal, to give people alternatives (in Saudi Arabia, e.g.)you can't ask us to give up the rationalizations that confer on us our sense of superiority, that entitle us to dominate or even kill unbelievers. Do you want us to stop being Muslims"? Muslims can't face the truth.
I think you are part right about why Robert doesn't get same treatment. But I think there is another factor. Robert scares phonies (and their power and income) because he gets right at the truth of things. They run from him. They fear him and the truth. I'm certain of it. (I'll bet Ibby Hooper runs like hell when he sees Robert-LOL.)
I admire Robert for his steadfast honesty re the facts. It takes a lot of guts. (Frankly, he has more faith in people than I do. Most people are not honest-not worth it.)
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 11:48 AM
A bit off topic:
Dinesh D'Sousa will be on C-SPAN 2 at 12:00Pm EST --promoted as a call in show while he promotes his book that has been critically panned by Fitzgerald, and Spencer over the past 2 weeks__
at February 4, 2007 11:57 AM
Well said awake! And I agree with Hugh too:
"knows perfectly well that they cannot be changed (this is not surmise, this is based on more intimate knowledge). "
Those Muslims who would agree with "ebony" aren't the problem, aren't the ones strapping bombs on themselves.
at February 4, 2007 12:06 PM
After the tsunami, I wondered why moderate Muslims did not flood Aceh province to preach that Allah had punished the people for being too radical. No moderates appeared, but the Jihadis poured into Aceh as soon as the water had receeded to preach that the tsunami was punishment for not being radical enough. As Aceh and other Indonesian provinces have grown more and more radical, they have suffered a series of natural disasters. Ba'ashr is released and they suffer more natural disasters.
If ever there were an opportunity for moderate Muslims to challenge the radicals it is in Indonesia after each natural disaster.
Hirsi Ali is correct when she says: "They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply — they’re reactive and they don’t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis."
Posted by: FirePig at February 4, 2007 12:43 PM
Telling Muslims not to be Jihadists is like telling a Baptist not to be a Fundamentalist. They are choosing fundamentalism as a method to promolgate their religion.
I have never doubted the missionary zeal of the fundamentalist christain churches. They have a lot of adherents. One problem that is rather evident, however, is that the fundamentalist christain churches when entering a county, do not get in line with the government as did the early Catholic church.
Here is where Islam has an upper hand. It is a theoracy as well. Thus as it enters a governmentally weak area, it surplants the government. Not only do you have to believe, you have to obey, because the rule of the belief has the rule of law behind it.
I see no way you can tell Muslims not to take up the sword. You can warn them not to, because of the consequences, but it is the core of their beliefs. I have never seen a fundamentalist church prohibt any outspoken leader and attempt to shut him up when he knew the bible and used it to bolster his view. I have seen the congregations not follow his leadership and rhetoric but never shut him up.
Posted by: credit man at February 4, 2007 12:54 PM
From what I understand, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the writings in the Bible, not detract from it. No matter what the Koran says or doesn't say, there are many who take it literally and infallibly.
To convince these Muslims that they believe in nothing more than a man-made myth would be a task of monumental proportions. I do not believe that can be done any more than you could convince observant Jews that the Talmud is just some ink on paper.
The best that could be hoped for, in my opinion, is with those Muslims who do not take all of the Koran as infallible. They could be convinced by pointing out various inconsistencies, passages taken out of context, etc. But the die-hard radicals are a different story altogether. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Some will always come to their senses but I think they will be few in number.
The problem I have always had with Hirsi Ali (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is not that she is a woman of color (for pete's sake!), is that not only will she speak out against the Koran (which is a good thing), but she will also speak out against all other religions too. That is what I have heard. I would be delighted to be wrong about that.
at February 4, 2007 12:57 PM
Hugh
"Debtication": You are so right; I've never come across a more innocent and heart-warming malapropism in its context. This is one guy I can trust my life with.
Posted by: ovidius_naso at February 4, 2007 1:00 PM
I do not see all religions as oppressive. Islam is, to be sure, but I have seen much good produced by Christianity for example.
at February 4, 2007 1:04 PM
Stephen Hawking once came up with a mathematical equation that postulated that black holes in the universe may disappear. Only one scientist (at that time)got the implications. That scientist realized that if Hawking was right then the universe (matter-energy-data) can be lost and the universe unpredictable, even an atomic reactor might have data disappear and suddenly go into a funky state. Hawking's theory required scientists to examine all the facts and come up with equations. It took decades to examine the data. (I think the final result is that Hawking and other physicists have concluded that black holes do not disappear.)
Adressing "the truth about Mohammed" may imply that Islam is unreformable. The truth-facts logically lead to that conclusion. However, in this matter, there is no cool, rational discussion on the matter.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 1:20 PM
Lilly
Hirsi Ali is an atheist. I don't know whether she's spoken against all religions, but, unlike Ali Sina, another apostate, she doesn't seem to see the need for a religion in order to build a just society. She thinks that society can be built on secular, classical liberal values
only.
at February 4, 2007 1:21 PM
"Hirsi Ali is an atheist. I don't know whether she's spoken against all religions, but, unlike Ali Sina, another apostate, she doesn't seem to see the need for a religion in order to build a just society. She thinks that society can be built on secular, classical liberal values
only."
-- from a posting above
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist.
But there is no evidence that Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks that "society can be built on secular, classical liberal values only."
Isn't it possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
1) an atheist and
2) has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it, as long as the forms it takes are not dangerous to others. Islam does not meet that definition. Most other belief-systems-cum-traditions we call "religions" at this point -- do.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 1:27 PM
Frank
Robert is one of a kind. He came out of the 80's academia with a doctorate but also--and mercifully--with a passion for truth instead of an opportunistic will to twist and "deconstruct" truth to death, until truth vanishes or is turned on its head, which is still the norm in universities.
Robert's and Hugh's work here, at JW, is quietly revolutionary, or maybe not so quietly anymore. Their word seems to be getting out there, for I believe D'Souza's book is an uncounscious polemic with thinking like Robert's.
at February 4, 2007 1:46 PM
IMO, IsabellatheCrusader, Muslim females are 100% powerless individuals in a super-patriarchal "culture" in which men hold sway over everything. Everything. In addition, the majority are undereducated or uneducated, they're brainwashed, and they live in constant fear of their male relatives having the power to murder them with impunity for the slightest perceived infraction in this "honor" culture. Basically, they're slaves, total chattel belonging to the males, having less worth in Muslim males' eyes than a camel.
Considering all of the horrific living conditions for them as cited above, I can't blame them too much for behaving in the way they do. They don't know any better, and they can't do anything about the deeply-enmeshed Muslim males complete power over them.
Posted by: darcy at February 4, 2007 1:46 PM
One more thing.
Ibn Warraq said all this a decade ago in "Why I Am Not a Muslim." But perhaps it takes the deaths and death-threats that are part of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's personal history, not to mention her fabulous physical allure, to get things finally, to the point where her views are recorded by that self-appointed newspaper of record.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 1:59 PM
Ali said this:
“And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran.”
And then she says this:
“The[y] come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win.”
A real jihadi? Would that be opposed to a quasi-jihadi? The term is not clearly defined and can include anyone who even minimally fits Ali’s rubric, whatever that turns out to be. Anyhow, I don’t know if ‘every time’ there is a debate between a real jihadi wins. Consider the discussion on whether Jews should be killed. Using the Qur’an, what can a jihadi say to ‘win’ the debate? I presume she means Q9:5. However, Q9:5 says that mushriks should be killed, not Jews (or Americans). When the Qur’an speaks of Jews it refers to them either as ‘yehuds’ or ‘people of the book’. And the ‘people of the book’ are not mushriks, but are dubbed kafir. Any jihadi who considers Jews mushrik backs him/herself into a tough corner with the Qur’an.
Of course, Ali can recourse and suggest that the jihadis will follow the tafsir tradition and/or Hadith tradition. Two responses are due. Firstly, tafsir tradition was (is?) never in unanimity. The classical commentators rarely agreed on anything in the Qur’an. (Read Q93:7 and the ‘traditional’ interpretations of this verse. The diversity is apparent) So such recourse would prove little since there is no single position to stand with. Secondly, the golden rule in Islamic legal tradition is that the Qur’an trumps tradition. If there’s a Hadith and/or legal edict that contradict the Qur’an the Qur’an is given primacy. That is sin qua non of Islamic legal tradition, and thus makes “Qur’an and Hadith” a mysterious couple.
Perhaps Ali will suggest that jihadis believe that the Qur’an abrogates certain verses. The problem with this maneuver is that it relies on tradition for it, not with the Qur’an. The Qur’an doesn’t discuss the theory of abrogation. Thus, the move would begin with a legal tradition back on to the Qur’an, which is backwards. Moreover, which verses are to be abrogated? The ‘traditional’ answer is, again, diverse and of little assistance.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
Posted by: Derrick_abdulhakim at February 4, 2007 2:03 PM
Hugh
The greater and Lesser jihad hadith appears only one place that i am aware of. It and other often quoted hadiths like, " seek knowledge even unto china," all come from the book: "The Revival of Religous Sciences." by al Ghazali. You will find almost all the pleasnt sounding hadiths that apalogist like to quote. There are many schalorly books writen agianst al Ghazalli's work, that show almost all his hadiths (up to 80% to 90%) are fake. I think Al Ghazalli's authorship of the work is even in doubt. The book is banned in some muslim countries. I know there alot of arabic books condeming the work and showing the hadiths to all be fake. Ghazalli doesn't provide proper chains of transmission for any of them either. He most likely picked them up during his Sufi days. Its also fun to read the stuff he says about women. I think these are the only hadiths that are right in the work.
at February 4, 2007 2:03 PM
As William F. Buckley used to say: "The ultimate enemy of myth is circumstance", which is what we see happening little by little as people read about outrages like the latest soldier-beheading conspiracy in Britain.
Eventually, Robert and Hugh and Ms. Ali will be in the mainstream because people will know that they're just telling it like it is.
at February 4, 2007 2:12 PM
Isn't it possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
1) an atheist and
2) has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it, as long as the forms it takes are not dangerous to others. Islam does not meet that definition. Most other belief-systems-cum-traditions we call "religions" at this point -- do.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 01:27 PM
That would be nice! There are people for whom religious beliefs are a great comfort to. I know of one person that was on the brink of suicide until she found religion.
Also, agree with what s_sgt7 said re communism. Hopefully, Robert's new book will bring some light onto this topic.
at February 4, 2007 2:43 PM
jewdog writes: "let me be non-PC here..Robert is not a woman of color."
Even with Ali being a woman of color, she has still been marginalized if not outright ignored over the years. That's how strong PC MC is. For its mainstream dominance to finally be broken (non-violently), it would take a Million-Man March of a Rainbow of People of Color + Feminists + Gays, all protesting Islam.
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 2:49 PM
Hugh wrote:
"But there is no evidence that Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks that "society can be built on secular, classical liberal values only."
Isn't it possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
1) an atheist and
2) has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it, as long as the forms it takes are not dangerous to others. Islam does not meet that definition. Most other belief-systems-cum-traditions we call "religions" at this point -- do.
Good God, Hugh, you are challenging my Chile Shiraz-soaked memory here--oh so mean and unfair of you! I know for sure Hirsi Ali's expressed her belief in secular morality without religious commandments, somewhere, in an interview or on her website. I'm going to search for the relevant quote.
Yet, in the same vein, what makes you so sure her argument is based on William James's view of religion? Can you quote to any such endorsment?
at February 4, 2007 2:52 PM
Hugh,
Regarding your observations with respect to Muslims in Canada. I concur. I don't know what's happened with regard to Canada's immigration laws, but something seems to have changed. In the past, an applicant was required to speak (with fluency) either English or French. Now, though, this doesn't seem to be required (is this due to "family immigration?"). More and more frequently, when these "Canadians" come to get their passport pictures, they arrive with a translator in tow. They can't speak a word of English or French, but, hey, they're getting their Canadian passports, and are deemed "citizens."
Posted by: J.S. at February 4, 2007 3:07 PM
"has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it"
Or, as Voegelin pointed out, not only do a great many people "need" religion, but religion is, in fact, an unavoidable existential constant (which Camus seemed to be coming to realize before his untimely death), and reasserts itself even in putatively atheist systems (Voegelin subsumed the German Nazi ideology under the category of Religionsersatz, and performed a similar analysis on Marxism). If religion is an unavoidable constant in the psyche and in society at large, that doesn't mean there are not pernicious permutations of it which we can adjudge -- whether of the "ersatz" form (Nazism, Communism) or of the more inveterately virulent form (Islam) or of various types in-between (the dangerous, but historically and sociologically marginal "cults") -- and whose effects we can work to minimize or eliminate, if possible, in society.
at February 4, 2007 3:12 PM
A.I. Steamroller wrote: The problem with Islam is Islam itself. Like Communism, it is fatally flawed from within and can't be "reformed" without destroying it in the process.
Absolutely correct. The entire nutshell premise of Islam is this: "God/Allah sent us a "prophet" who gave us God's/Allah's complete word in the Qur'an (indirectly) which is absolute and pure, as opposed to the Torah and Gospels (injeel) which were corrupted over time."
If a Muslim dares to say, "maybe this part/that part is no longer relevant, historically correct, has been changed..." etc, then in the Muslim mindset that means the Qur'an is no better than the Torah or Bible, and Islam is just another religion. It would mean the Qur'an they follow is not in fact the direct dictation word-for-word from God, and THAT takes away the sole basis for its superiority.
Educated Muslims today live in a type of schyzophrenia (very much like educated Mormons) in that they know the Qur'an says the world is flat, they know it says the earth was made before the stars and they know it says the sun revolves around the earth. Yet they comfort and convince themselves with a myriad of excuses, double-talk and even blatant lies to explain away these passages (the most common excuse is, "You need to understand classical Arabic to fully grasp the passage.")
Posted by: Qualis Rex at February 4, 2007 3:14 PM
Sir Henry Morgan wrote:
"About as PC as the MSM gets, but Mr Spencer's 'The Truth about Muhamed' has gotten itself reviewed in the Observer. And a good - if short - review at that.
We are getting there folks.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005391,00.html
"
The Observer (the Sunday version of The Guardian) is as liberal as liberal can be. Yet in today's edition there is not only a highly positive review of Spencer's 'Truth about Muhamed', but also an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself, where the interviewer is thoroughly supportive of her views. And what's more there is also an article (by Henry Porter) deeply critical of those who tolerate Islamic intolerence.
Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005258,00.html
Article on Islamic intolerance:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2005511,00.html
Maybe there is hope that anti-Jihad consciousness is rising amongst liberals.
at February 4, 2007 3:24 PM
Hugh
Here is a good webiste to follow up on the, "Revival of Religous Sciences," by all ghazalli. This website has a list of all the classical refutations in arabic. It also includes a fatwa issued by the saudi uleama. Pure gold to shut down people using these hadiths to paint islam in a good light. Here is the website:
http://www.ghazali.org/site/ihya.htm
Posted by: American_soldier at February 4, 2007 3:39 PM
So Darcy, what you are saying then is that a Muslim woman, like Ali Hirsi's grandmother, gets a pass when she does something as despicable as waiting until her daughter is away from home for several weeks and then proceeds to circumcise all of her daughter's children? Or when a Muslim woman's son rapes and impregnates her daughter and after suggesting to the daughter that she might want to kill herself because SHE has dishonored the family, and then the daughter doesn't do it, is it the brainwashing and patriarchal male dominated society that makes her kill her daughter?
I used to think the same way as you, until I saw a picture of a Muslim toddler with blood dripping down his face, being held by his mother from behind and she peering around to catch a glimpse of his face, she smiling proudly, while holding the knife that caused his wound. It's not just the men.
And maybe they abuse because they are abused. But we are all going to answer for our actions, sooner or later. And to say that Muslim women don't have a choice in how they conduct that last thing that they own, their conciences, is pure bullshit. There is something that many of these women get out of being Muslim, and it is probably sick and demented because I can't for the life of me figure out why a woman would not resist in some way, even unto death. If a woman has the true maternal instinct she would die rather than have her child harmed to save herself. The behavior of Muslim women is absolutely bizarre.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 4, 2007 3:58 PM
s_sgt7 wrote:
"Hirsi Ali enjoys the freedoms of a society based on Judeo Christian beliefs in Europe (I think she has since moved to the USA, but I don't remember). Either way, atheism is allowed to her to practice because of our Judeo-Christian society. "
The last sentence of this statement is not true. When our society was 'Judeo-Christian' atheism was not allowed, and its exponents were burnt at the stake.
Our society is based on the secular Enlightenment (America explicitly, in the form of its constitution), the principles of which Hirsi Ali believes in.
Posted by: schmegel at February 4, 2007 4:02 PM
Doing the math of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's age -- her father arranged her marriage with a stranger he met at the mosque when Ayaan was 20 years old.
I wonder how many young Leftist women aged 20 in the West would put up with their fathers telling them who they will marry, and foisting a complete stranger on them to boot. The perverse thing is that most of these young Leftist women aged 20 in the West instinctively defend Islam and Third World cultures, at the very least with the old cultural relativity argument, and usually intermixed with more incoherently complex overlays to that tinged with vaguely anti-Western and anti-American pathologies.
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 4:06 PM
From the above post: "If a woman has the true maternal instinct she would die rather than have her child harmed to save herself." Apparently, you haven't heard about what goes on in a certain Muslim african state which has female children forced to drink gallons and gallons of milk -- this is to make them fat. The girl children are tortured (there are wooden implements used to squeeze the feet of the children -- done by the mothers) so that the child drinks the milk. This practice is OK by Islamic standards...no problem... Another cultural practice I trust the UK will not soon be adopting...then, again, one never knows given their deep love, strong admiration for, not to mention, adoption of Multi-Kulti Kults.
Posted by: J.S. at February 4, 2007 4:10 PM
"...the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on"
I understand the woman to mean by this phrase:
"This koran isn't meant for these times,- the world has evolved - we're in the 21st century."
Isn't that wht she meant?
at February 4, 2007 4:15 PM
schmegel, where did the Enlightenment come from? Did it drop from the blue sky? Did it not grow out of the soil of Christendom? What were its roots? Some alien culture from China, or from another planet perhaps?
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 4:21 PM
How can you "change" the uncreated word of God? How can you amend something that is said to be perfect, down to every last dot and letter? How can you alter a book whose master copy is said to be somewhere up in Heaven?
Can't be done.
Posted by: scaramouoche at February 4, 2007 4:33 PM
As I see it, all the major religions promote brotherhood and for very practical reasons, since people need to get along. Islam also promotes brotherhood (in a dysfunctional family sense), but for members only.
I don't know if any of you have read about it, but Danish linguist Tina Magaard analyzed 10 major religious texts over a three year period and concluded that Islam was egregiously intolerant toward other religions, and contained "straightforward calls for terrorism". As she noted: If people take those texts as a contemporary guide, then "we have a problem".
Yes, Tina, we have a problem.
at February 4, 2007 4:42 PM
Mr Spencer- hope you see this post
The other side of the Prophet
Robert Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad provides a timely riposte to common misconceptions about the prophet.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005391,00.html
And this is in the The GUARDIAN!
Posted by: DP111 at February 4, 2007 5:02 PM
And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing.
That would be pigs doing an aerobatic display.
at February 4, 2007 5:07 PM
wow...Just watched Fox news....Radical Islam:Terror,own words....Powerful.....One segment broke my heat....the brain washing of children.....Voice:What are you holding? Child:A rifle . Voice: what are you going to do with it? Child: Kill the Jews!...he looked about 5 or 6 years old...I read about this stuff everyday...but on my T.V. screen it stunned me...They showed the Jihad cartoons...I didnt like the fact that E.D.Hill lets an Imam lie to her.....but over all a powerful show...GOD BLESS FOX NEWS...THAT WAS A BRAVE SHOW.
Posted by: storagemanager at February 4, 2007 5:08 PM
SHM
Sorry - didnt see your post.
As you say - step by tiny step, we're getting there, and even the Guardianstas are having to assess their positions in the light of reality. They need, as a first, to stop listening to the blandishments of in-house Muslims, who have been feeding them Taqqiya prime cut, since 9/11.
Posted by: DP111 at February 4, 2007 5:11 PM
"schmegel, where did the Enlightenment come from? Did it drop from the blue sky? Did it not grow out of the soil of Christendom? What were its roots? Some alien culture from China, or from another planet perhaps?"
As a matter of fact, it did come from the influence of Mysticism - you could say another world.
From the influence of the notes of music - vibrations upon the brain. Vibrations - enrgery waves from another Reality.
I can site just a few examples, as a reminder:
Church music written religious men and women, such as Hildegard von Bingen, and there are the gregorian Chants,
Then there was Francis of Assisi that communicated with animals
again I say,
Juan de la Cruz and Teresa de Avila, julian of Norwich, Catherine of Siena. Aquinas, Bacon, Eickhard, Jacob Boehme, and so many other like them
so that while the church hierarchy, the popes and cardinals rolled in the filth of their acts, the common people - in spite of the tightening of Canon Law -
these people ignored and rebelled and
rose and practiced communication with the Highest God
These were of the church and were out of the church.
-----------------
and there were the Jews before that, which accepted the Kabalah,
Maimonides -
de Spinoza -
bar-Hillel.
And others that I can't recall.
ANd back in Fiarenze - these of the common people and of the new sprung MERCHANT CLASS/MIDDLE CLASS. The revival of Ancient knowledge that spread outward.
Yeah, this was brought back from the Holy Land - but it WAS STRANGE - UNEARTHLY information that had originated from India, to Ancient Egypt - to Greece.
You KNOW something about MA'AT?
Don't forget that while the Cathars were slaughtered in Aquitaine, their teachings and ideal were disbursed all over Europe. The Other Worldly Teachings was a fire that could not be put out.
Such as Giordano Bruno's philosophy.
The minute something is repressed, and authorities try to stamp it out, little sparks fly through the air to catch other flammables.
There were the pilgrimages to
But above all, they did not do it alone, they came at a time that the PRINTING PRESS was "invented." in Europe.
And don't forget that the rebellion against the christian church began - for whatever reason, personal or otherwise, like Henry Tudor.
There was the strange appearance of the Virgen de Guadalupe - out of NOWHERE - and this was accepted by the church.
All this was ongoing, HELL - even Albert Einstein (that clown), Bohr, etc. were dealing with stuff from ELSEWHERE.
So - you can see - all the advances and evolutions have come out of the Blue.
Posted by: allat at February 4, 2007 5:23 PM
Derrick Abdul-Hakim, abrogation is a Qur'anic concept-- 2:106 16:101. Without "nasikh" Muslims would have stayed with the Meccan teachings, there would have been no Jihad conquests, they would never have left Arabia.
So difficult to know which insult applies to oneself, isn't it? A mushrikun is not a kaffir who is not exactly an Infidel. Except they are all "disbelievers" when you come down to it. You think kaffir is a kinder, gentler term? "Kaffir, the worst word that can be written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt." --Sheikh Feiz, Saudi-trained UK preacher.
The term "mushrikun" is pretty elastic. Polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers, those guilty of "shirk." Idolaters (mushrikun) can be applied to almost anyone who rejects Islam including Jews and Christians (who are guilty of "shirk" for ascribing partners to God). Muslims insist this verse did not apply to People of the Book, on the other hand at the time of this revelation most of the "idol worshippers" had accepted Islam, only Jews and a small group of Christians remained opposed so who was he discussing? Regardless, every Islamic terrorist uses 9:5 as their command to fight Jihad against Infidels (all-inclusive). The war was clearly extended to People of the Book in 9:29, with the 'tolerance" provision, though not paying the jizya or causing "mischief" in the land returns a Jew or Christian to the status of "prisoner of war" and again facing death, just like a mushrikun. Poor Jews who could not pay the tax were killed, in fact. That Allah despises and curses the Jews and Muslims should too is a true attitude of Islam. It is Qur'anic and very much in the Sunnah. You might deny the validity of the ahadith-- Muhammad's acts, words and judgments-- but this is not true of the vast majority of the Muslim world, is it?
Posted by: Nick Danger
at February 4, 2007 5:27 PM
DP111 wrote: "They need, as a first, to stop listening to the blandishments of in-house Muslims, who have been feeding them Taqqiya prime cut, since 9/11."
Very true. Before 9/11 the overwhelming majority of the West thought Qur'an was something pre-schoolers used on colouring books. And after 9/11 there was a scrable for information on Islam and the Qur'an. Most news and media outlets turned to staff or "trusted sources" for information, which was often blatantly biased and distorted to the point of losing all credibility.
I can't tell you how many times I have read the words "the Holy Qur'an" written in the Guardian, (as well as USA today in the US). When describing the bible or the torah, they say just that. So, you can tell exactly who was behind writing their articles.
Posted by: Qualis Rex at February 4, 2007 5:27 PM
Well, Fox's report on Islam was an eye-opener. They went into the details of the idiots blowing themselves up for paradise. Amazing ! Good work FOX ! Tell the truth, they're brain-dead and will never change. If they come to America, it's only to Over-throw our country for Islam !
Posted by: Jeff at February 4, 2007 5:31 PM
"schmegel, where did the Enlightenment come from? Did it drop from the blue sky? Did it not grow out of the soil of Christendom? What were its roots? Some alien culture from China, or from another planet perhaps?"
Bingo, remote_control. That is why I'm hoping Robert's new book will cover some of these issues.
All I am saying is not to "throw the baby out with the bath water." I don't have a problem with anyone being an atheist as long as they are equally tolerant of those who believe in God, or a "Higher Power" if you will (not talking about Hisri here). And who express those beliefs in a peaceful way.
I cannot prove the existence of God anymore than the atheist can disprove that there is a God. Minds far greater than mine were also deeply religious like Isaac Newton for example. Not one I would think to follow fairy tales. But, some people have agendas for attacking traditional Judeo-Christian morality right along with Islam. Usually they are on the far Left but not always.
at February 4, 2007 5:33 PM
Well, I can't agree with you, Isabella. IMO, the black-shrouded ones are total victims of sociopathic super-misogynist Muslim men. Of course there are exceptions like Hirsi Ali and Dr. Wafa Sultan who are more intelligent and more courageous than the average Muslim female. There must be something written about the slave existence of Muslim women and why they don't all rebel their way out of it, on the 'net. Maybe it's mass Stockholm Syndrome as they most certainly exist as captives. When scenes of Iraq are shown on TV the humans you see outside are men and boys. Only occasionally a female. That's because the females live, for the most part, as prisoners inside their homes. They're so oppressed they can't even go outside unless a male relative OK's it or accompanies her. Sheesh. What a nightmare existence.
Posted by: darcy at February 4, 2007 5:40 PM
And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing.
Its probably missing because the revisionists would have a really, really hard time finding affordable life insurance.
at February 4, 2007 5:50 PM
Darcy,
Are the women "victims?" I don't think so. I recall reading about jihadi women in Iraq who told the men-folk to "get out there and fight! you flipping cowards!" or words to that effect (actually, as I recall, it was more along the lines of "Get out there and blow yourselves up, you lazy, cowardly dogs!") What you hear of "hate" preached by Imams at mosques is taken up as a rallying cry for the females to their men folk. Ditto for the female "mothers" in "Palestine" -- they all brag about how many sons have blown themselves up and tell their surviving sons to emulate their dead siblings. So, I don't consider them "victims."
Posted by: J.S. at February 4, 2007 5:59 PM
Also, remote_control, here are just a few who have helped us all along:
Simon Greenleaf
The foremost expert on legal evidence and one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School became a Christian when he set out to disprove it.
Michael Faraday
The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites).
Kelvin (William Thompson)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.
Louis Pasteur
French chemist and biologist who proved the germ theory of disease and invented the process of pasteurization.
Gregor Mendel
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism".
Max Planck
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds.
Rene Descartes
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy.
John Napier
The first prominent Scientist from the British Isles. Not only was he a well noted scientist, he was also one of the greatest men that Scotland ever produced(Great Christian Mathematics).
Nicholas Copernicus
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.
Johannes Kepler
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun.
Robert Boyle
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses, and also wrote an important work on chemistry.
There are many more.
Posted by: Lilly at February 4, 2007 5:59 PM
Oops, that should have read "Great Christian Mathematician"
at February 4, 2007 6:08 PM
Agree with J.S. and others about the women of Islam -- they can be just as deranged as the men. Just as deadly too.
at February 4, 2007 6:15 PM
"We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing."
How can the non-existent "moderate" Moslem change what is supposedly the word of their god in the koran, and what the one who received that word is supposed to have said?
"Reform" of Islam is wishful thinking--a pipe dream, as much of an impossibility as G. W. Bush's dream of two states living side by side on Israeli land.
Islam must be defeated. We cannot wait, hoping that it will reform itself from within.
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com
Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 4, 2007 6:56 PM
If you removed all violence, slavery and oprression from their faith, would there be anything left that wasn't clearly borrowed from the great faiths that came before it? That hollow shell of a religion would not give them the world. Posted by: CatawhumpusI wouldn't state that it gave nothing. Where in the Bible, or associated scriptures, or book of Avesta, or the Upanishads (take your pick) would one find recommendations on how to clean oneself after taking a dump? Where else would one learn whether semen stained clothes are okay to venture out in? Where else would one learn which animal excrements are okay for human consumption and which ones are not? Or which direction not to face when reliving oneself?
I disagree with you. Islam is perfect - a comprehensive package of solutions that no other religion ever compiled - be it a pre-Islamic religion like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, or be it a post-Islamic religion, like Sikhism, Scientology (I think), Mormonism, et al. No infidel can learn their toilet habits from their holy books (where in the Torah or the Puranas does it say anything about toilet paper?), while Muslims can. That's a major advantage they have over us.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 4, 2007 7:33 PM
"Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist. But there is no evidence that Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks that "society can be built on secular, classical liberal values only. Isn't it possible that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
1) an atheist and
2) has concluded that a great many people, for all kinds of reasons that need not be gone into here (but start with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James), need religion and should have it, as long as the forms it takes are not dangerous to others. Islam does not meet that definition. Most other belief-systems-cum-traditions we call "religions" at this point -- do.
Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 4, 2007 01:27 PM
I admit I am struggling with this one. You have to admit it has an awfully elitist ring to it. Hirsi Ali is an atheist (like Hugh I presume) but Hirsi Ali (again like Hugh I presume) also acknowledges that religion may in fact be necessary for the vast bulk of (may I presume the ignorant and morally obtuse?) masses. But it is also clear that Hirsi Ali and other atheists would presumably prefer to live in (at least some) societies created by those ignorant masses who somehow need religion, while the atheists who dwell safely amongst them, don't.
Again, I have a problem with this. It would seem more honest to me if Hirsi Ali and Hugh merely defined themselves as agnostics - the honest "don't knowers" as opposed to the atheists who are certain that there is no God. If they lived in a society of people who were certain that there were no God, like themselves, would it be the sort of society they would want to live in? Presumably not, since the admission here seems to be that religion is a hoax that a few select people don't need but that the ignorant masses do, otherwise the whole society could quite possibly become a nightmare. But if there is no God, on what grounds could they complain that there was something morally amiss in such an atheistic society?
Again, I admit that I am struggling with this one. Mainly because I feel it comes from the perspective of people who have actually reaped the benefit of certain concrete religious traditions but who also feel that such traditions are merely for the ignorant, even though those very traditions have created the societies in which these people want to live (whether Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, e.g). There's an incongruity there which I find difficult to resolve.
at February 4, 2007 7:42 PM
Caroline,
That incongruity on an important level is neither here nor there insofar as it exists in the wider context of a sociopolitically neutral vehicle of modern Western secularism, since that vehicle aims for -- and has tended to attain with admirable success -- an optimal (not perfect) harmony among competing visions of truth.
Paradoxically, that neutrality itself grew organically out of the synthesis of the Graceo-Roman philosophoumena of truths and the Judaeo-Christian theologoumena of truths; and that synthesis was medieval Christendom -- paradoxically, because there is no Archimedean point where any single truth (including the truth of neutrality) enjoys the lucid blueprint of apodictic truth. The Western genius has been to work out -- not without a lot of debate, argument, strife and violence along the way -- the paradox of the "Unseen Measure" which indeed measures, but remains hidden from possessive view.
at February 4, 2007 8:33 PM
Caroline-
I've met too many fanatical atheists not to think it too is a "religion". Anything that involves belief should not be treated as a fact by a rational man or woman. A belief is not a fact. Atheism is just another belief system. I am as skeptical of atheism as I am of organized religion.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 8:38 PM
remote_control-
You write-sound (above post) like my favorite educator, Dr. Irwin Corey. He's "the world's greatest expert on everything". I do a great imitation of him. Really. In fact, I have a talent for that. I do a terrific Jackie Mason and Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone. I really have a gift for that.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 8:47 PM
Remote and Frank - because I am quite serious in raising this question I truly welcome both of your responses. I share Frank's impression that "Atheism is just another belief system". (How could it not be?) And remote - isn't what you describe as the product of western civilization actually agnosticism, rather than atheism? Because really, there's a major difference between the two. And what is "the paradox of the unseen measure"? Never heard of it but inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 8:57 PM
Storagemanager and Jeff.
I also watched it and I think there is another screening later today. Hope that many others get to watch it.
I found the links to youtube.
(I hope they work - my pc is acting wierdly).
If not go to the homepage and search for the titles.
Radical Islam: Terror in it's own words Part I
Radical Islam: Terror in it's own words Part II
Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words (Part III)
Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words (Part IV)
Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words (Part V)
Posted by: Gramfan
at February 4, 2007 9:01 PM
Sorry. The links didn't come up live.
Now I am really confused!
at February 4, 2007 9:02 PM
Why should I define myself as an "agnostic"? That would be weaselling out. I'm an atheist. Period.
As for the charge that my friendly acceptance of religion "has an awfully elitist ring to it" -- why do you think that word "elitist" describes something bad? It is the absence of a self-confident elite, defined not in terms of money (the only kind of "elite" we now have) but in the coin of something else, that has helped bring things to the pretty pass, the one that leads between the two mountains and right into a deep canyon from which there is no exit.
Far more disturbing than that kind of gentle and jsutified "elitism" is the official levelling of the age, an "Equalism" or, as Nabokov put it in his novel "Bend Sinister" the ideology of "Ekwilism" that is killing everything, beginning with art and education.
I'm not some heartless and humorless Richard Dawkins, taking offense at belief, and feeling the need to go around knocking Bibles out of hands, and beliefs out of the heads, of inoffensive Christian everywhere. Not at all. I like hymns. I like Gospel music. I like madonnas and bambinos and Biblical scenes from both the Old and New Testaments, in art galleries everywhere. I like peoiple to recognize Biblical allusions. I like people raised on the rhythms of the King James versio of the Bible. I think American children should be taught Biblical stories, and that Bible readings in school would be a good thing.
Yes, I'm an atheist but go ahead, give me that Old-Time Religion, and the Old-Time Gospel Hour, and don't tell me that American history can possibly be understood without taking into account the central role of Christianity, and especially the Protestantism of 18th and 19th century America. But I can't believe what I can't believe.
And the only elite we need listen to, but we need listen to that elite, is the one described by Keats, as being made up of the Noble Living and the Noble Dead.
Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2007 9:07 PM
Caroline-
I love this one..
http://www.irwincorey.org/agam.html
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 9:09 PM
Salaam Mr. Pride:
Very specific and useful laws for ritual ablution and hygiene using water can be found in Deuteronomy, as well as in the Vishnu Puranas. Both religions are complete ways of life and this is why Jews are considered "people of the book", and why it has been argued that monotheistic Hindus should also be considered "people of the book".
with Catawhumpus i have to agree that Islam does not offer anything new in the way of religion, and that the practices of violence, slavery and oprression by Muslims need to be stopped. However, I am dubious that following the practices of religions that have lasted thousands of years leads to hollowness in one's faith.
I also have to ask, if Islam is destined to failure, why hasn't it disappeared yet? Why didn't it disappear after our prophet Mohammed died without appointing a successor, or when Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad, or after the fall of the Ottoman Empire? This seems to be a very slow kind of failure, please clarify.
Anyhow, I was happy to see some words from Sister Ali here, inshahallah they will be far reaching and she will be very successful in her teachings. Long live the jihad of Ayaan Hirsi Ali!
Posted by: jehana at February 4, 2007 9:11 PM
Actually Hugh - I "can't believe what I can't believe" either. But to me that's agnosticism. (And I for one, am not troubled by the humility of stating that I don't know.) An atheist, by contrast, is one who has a certain belief - namely that God does NOT exist. Can you state THAT belief with certainty?
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 9:45 PM
Hugh,
You and that other atheist Socrates (the "atheist" who believed in one God) would both go on trial in Athens together. I would vote to acquit both of you. It's the people who put Socrates on trial that are the danger with their damned dogmas and dogmatism. The fanatics are always there ready to harm anyone with a skeptical mind re atheism, theism or some damn belief that they treat as a scientific-proved fact.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 10:02 PM
Hugh-
It is impossible to prove that there is no God. It is impossible to prove the existance of God. Both are beliefs. A person may believe whaht they desire-either way-so long as they keep their beliefs on a personal level and don't demand that others believe as they do.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 10:08 PM
P.S. Hugh - Please drop "the heartless and humorless Richard Dawkins" stuff. I'm not the least bit interested in that sort of prejudice. I did indeed bring up the "elitist" angle. But if any "elitist" thinks its a good thing to teach those old-fashioned Christian values to the next generation, while at the same time feeling that those values have no absolute validity and are merely the opiate for the masses - that's the sort of dichotomy I am questioning.
I certainly don't mean to be disrespectful to the co-host of the site that permits me to post here in an open forum. I can only reiterate that I raise it as an open question that truly gives me pause. I happen to think that it's a very important issue to raise in terms of the fight for our civilization that we face and it's been my experience in my 47 years that if I am seriously wondering about some things, then I am quite likely not alone.
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 10:13 PM
Caroline,
"isn't what you describe as the product of western civilization actually agnosticism, rather than atheism?"
Yes, but the point is, it best allows for the freedom and dignity of atheists as well as of religious people of every stripe, so long as the stripe doesn't seek to undermine or destroy that freedom and dignity.
"And what is "the paradox of the unseen measure"? Never heard of it but inquiring minds want to know.."
The "unseen measure" was a term purportedly used by the great Athenian lawmaker, Solon, which Plato appreciated, and then Voegelin noticed it sounds the same note that has reverberated throughout Western history (with varying tonalities), of the paradox that's clear from the meaning of the two words: how can you measure anything with a measure that's "unseen"? And yet, not only do we -- in fact it's the only way we do.
The paradox exposes the fallacy of the polar extremes of which it is the tensional spectrum in between: the atheist would deny -- would not "believe" -- in a measure for truth about the meaning of life and the concomitant ground for ordering society that radiates out from that meaning; the theist would deny that it's "unseen", since he has been privileged to see it so clearly, after all. But those fallacies are permitted, and their full dignity, freedom and equality (along with any annoying features they might bring along as well) respected, by the agnostic, within the neutral secular system.
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 10:15 PM
Frank: "It is impossible to prove that there is no God. It is impossible to prove the existance of God. Both are beliefs."
Exactly. But that supports agnosticism rather than atheism. The bottom line is that We don't know.
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 10:18 PM
I can see Hugh and Socrates being charged with "Atheism". Socrates is charged with belief in one God, Hugh with belief in no God, and both are tried by an elite that believes in a bunch of gods that live on a mountain. Socrates and Hugh get along fine, but the clowns who invoke the gods make them drink Hemlock.
Beliefs are not facts, and are a matter of opinion with those who use reason, but are a matter of fact to those who are demented. The demented made Socrates drink Hemlock.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 10:20 PM
When I said: "how can you measure anything with a measure that's "unseen"? And yet, not only do we -- in fact it's the only way we do."
Of course, I wasn't referring to physical measures: I'm talking about existential questions that ground ethics and laws.
Posted by: remote_control at February 4, 2007 10:40 PM
Caroline-
If all agree that it is impossible to prove with certainty either the existence or non-existence of God "I don't know" will be the logical position of all rational people. Since agnosticism is defined here as "I don't know" then it must apply to atheist, theist and "agnostics" in a rational world. There is no certainty on the matter. Anyone who says there is certainty on the matter is a liar or a fanatic.
Anyone who says they know for certain, as if it is proved scientific fact, that God either exists or does not exist know that they cannot produce any objective absolute proof to support their belief. It's all a matter of opinion. We are all agnostics if we are honest and rational.
Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2007 10:40 PM
"Hirsi Ali is an atheist. I don't know whether she's spoken against all religions, but, unlike Ali Sina, another apostate, she doesn't seem to see the need for a religion in order to build a just society.'
I don't know whether the woman said this - but people do switch back and forth - atheism is not written on stone.
At any rate, let her take a breather from a religion. The grip of islam is so pervasive ( I think) that - I would think - she needs to stand aside from anything.
But anyway, people don't need religon to do right - it's within them.
Posted by: allat at February 4, 2007 10:48 PM
"Hirsi Ali is wrong then. Communism is a failed adventure."
Thing is being an atheist doesn't mean one is a communist. There's a lot of atheists that choose it as a personal way, and don't go out and try to convert others.
Also, mind you, religion and spirituality are two different things. Someone that tries to commit suicide then "finds God" doesn't necessarily mean, in a formal, dogmatic way.
Posted by: allat at February 4, 2007 11:08 PM
remote_control: "But those fallacies are permitted, and their full dignity, freedom and equality (along with any annoying features they might bring along as well) respected, by the agnostic, within the neutral secular system."
So if I read you correctly, it appears that what you are saying is that it is the agnostic, rather than the theist or atheist, who provides for the equal dignity of all men, on whom the continuity of western civilization depends? If so, I won't argue with you there.
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 11:11 PM
Posted by: Frank [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 4, 2007 10:40 PM
Everything you said in that post - I second. It's indeed the only position an honest person can take.
Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2007 11:16 PM
in the NYT article quoting her, and in many other places, Hirsi Ali also calls herself "a Muslim" and stands up for the rights of Muslims.
She's a great politician for sure. I'd vote for her.
Posted by: jehana at February 4, 2007 11:22 PM
Are the women "victims?" I don't think so. I recall reading about jihadi women in Iraq who told the men-folk to "get out there and fight! you flipping cowards!" or words to that effect (actually, as I recall, it was more along the lines of "Get out there and blow yourselves up, you lazy, cowardly dogs!")..............'
IT's unfathomable. We need to catch a couple of 'em and put them under phychiatric observation- do a study on them. What makes them tick. I kid you knot.
Poor twisted minds.
at February 4, 2007 11:27 PM
Frank/
"A person may believe whaht sic] they desire-either way-so long as they keep their beliefs on a personal level and don't demand that others believe as they do."
Precisely. And that is the fundamental difference between islam and almost any other belief system which you care to name. Even the mildest and most 'moderate' believer in islam demands that one believes as he/she believes whereas most other belief systems merely ask and are prepared to accomodate variance and difference.
Islam, and its adherents, believe that it, and theirs, is the immutable and final belief status for all humankind. Most other belief systems agree that revelation is an ongoing wisdom and that beliefs will necessarily change, in some respect or another, as knowledge - God given - changes. Almost all other belief systems, except islam, believe that there are distinctions between values, moralities, beliefs and motivations and that some type of evolution involving all four of these aspects will lead us all to a closer understanding of God and His will. Only islam, and the wilder, marginalised and lunatic fringes of other faiths, states that this is not so and that everything is finished and that we cannot change a single interpretation or belief - that such an authority, as they see it, is absolute, unchangeable and given by some great man/woman, who may, or may not, have had a unique and privileged access to God's mind in the past - and that the further, for many such people, into the past that such a 'prophet' can be viewed to have existed then the greater his/her authority seems to be for such people.
However, for believers in any belief system, probably including the pernicious and evil system of islam, agnosticism is not an option. The cop out, so to speak, is the human sense of the numinous - a sense of the presence of a Divinity which we detect with our minds - this is more than belief, it is the feeling that suffuses the whole being that there is something greater than we; in moments of particular religious clarity (or delusion) we believe that we can even hear, or see, this greater thing/being.
This 'sense of the numinous' may be nothing more than an artifact of the mind at work in a confusing multiverse, or a mind at work but carrying some psychological, authority seeking, trauma, or a mind working and perceiving the sheer cosmic vastness and attemting to organise the chaos thereby engendered, or a mind which, carrying the ability to believe in things (an essential ability for any being in a complex society where personal verification of every fact is impossible) has, quite simply gone too far (into overdrive, as it were); but, there is an outside possibility, and one asserted by all believers, that since so many of us sense the numinous, the Divine, that our minds have evolved to sense that which is really there, just as our bodies connected to that mind have, because, just like the physical phenomena upon which the more prosaic minded rely, it is really there.
The true believer in a Divinity will, or perhaps 'should' would be a kinder term, assert that this ability of the mind to detect the Divine, the numinous, the God related presence, is merely the development of a sense - a sense not materially different from those of sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste. Such people would assert, I believe (and there's that word again), aver that the mind's ability to detect God is in no literal way different from the mind's ability to cope with the sensations of seeing, scenting, hearing, touching and tasting. Some would go further and state that the mind's ability to quantify, sift and sort all sorts of evidence about all sorts of subjects makes it illogical to distrust the mind on this one point alone and that those who do so are making an unwarranted and arbitrary distinction between different mind/mental processes.
Obviously, if such an argument is followed to its logical conclusion then agnosticism is not, and cannot be, the default position for a mind which sees itself, rightly or wrongly, as an interpretor of the senses for the possessor being, both adding to and interpreting such senses and also having the ability to sense for itself. Such a mind will, logically, believe the impulse of, and to, the numinous to be a valid sensing of the world(s) around it. By logic, such a mind will not, and cannot, accept agnosticism so, therefore, agnosticism cannot be the default belief system of all of humankind.
In other words, the knowledge of the numinous, the Divine, as provided by the mind, is absolute and certain or completely lacking. Therefore agnosticism is impossible for any believer. One believes or one does not believe - if one comes to rest between those two points then one's mind has failed to operate correctly. If one does not believe then one's mind has failed to operate correctly. The only correct and logical point for a believer is the position of belief - agnosticism doesn't, and cannot ever, enter into it. Q.E.D.
The only question remaining is the one about how one should express that point of belief - certainly not an islamic expression, pray God.
Dominic.
at February 4, 2007 11:57 PM
Well, well, well...Atheism vs theism are these "dichotomies"? Not necessarily. I recall a practicing orthodox fellow (Judaism) who's also an atheist. Although this might cause considerable pain for a rabbi, it's not totally out of bounds. You can still be bound by the ethical requirements (and whether or not one believes in a divine entity is not utterly essential.)
Next, I've (personally) thought that if religion is not about ethical behavior, then it's not worth looking into or bothering with. What religion (ideally) should be teaching its followers is what constitutes moral behavior, ethical principles.
What religion should NOT be engaged in is the furtherance of wanton cruelty. (And, here, I suppose I reach a stumbling block with regard to Islam -- there is a passage in the bible which describes the fate of King Zedekiah. The bible illiterates -- King Zedekiah takes on Nebuchadnezzar -- Zedekiah loses. Zedekiah's fate? He is forced to witness the execution of his two sons, then Zedekiah is blinded and taken off to Babylon. Now, that's Babylon. They seemed to excel at devising, perfecting, and honing the art of cruelty. Many times when i read about Islam, I think about Nebuchadnezzar, and how so very, very little has changed...)
Posted by: J.S. at February 4, 2007 11:59 PM
Caroline,
"So if I read you correctly, it appears that what you are saying is that it is the agnostic, rather than the theist or atheist, who provides for the equal dignity of all men, on whom the continuity of western civilization depends?"
I wouldn't quite put it that way: it's not the agnostic (as the best type of person) who provides for the equal dignity (and rights) of all men, but the agnostic system in which agnostic individuals are just participants along with everybody else.
Only one slight tonality bothers me about Frank's articulations, and I would put it in a roundabout way: In my view, the agnostic knows more than the atheist stubbornly insists, while at the same time the agnostic knows less than the theist stubbornly insists from his opposite perch. Frank seems to err towards putting his lack of knowledge on a pedestal, but such a perfect equipoise of knowledgelessness would seem to ignore or bracket out any grounds for laws and ethics, leaving them to relativistic casuistry and no basis to discern and judge good and evil.
Posted by: remote_control at February 5, 2007 12:00 AM
This is a response to Nick Danger’s interesting response to my previous posting.
You state:
“Derrick Abdul-Hakim, abrogation is a Qur'anic concept-- 2:106 16:101. Without "nasikh" Muslims would have stayed with the Meccan teachings, there would have been no Jihad conquests, they would never have left Arabia.”
Ah - yes, verses Q2:106 and Q16:101. I went back and re-read the ‘abrogation’ verses that you posted. I must hesitate at your understanding. First of all, notice the verse begins with a “Ma nansakh min ayatin…” Whenever ‘ayatin’ appears the Qur’an is referring to a message, be it religious or secular. (Read Q6:4, 25, and 35 where ‘ayatin’ functions in both contexts) The term is wide enough to imply any message sent by the divine author. That’s just the nature of God’s message. It can be accepted, rejected, and annulled. Anyhow, my point is this: the phrase ‘Ma nansakh min ayatin’ is not talking about the divine message *specifically* in the Qur’an, but rather a divine message (any divine message in the past or present). When the Qur’an is referring to itself, be it as a whole or a particular verse, it uses the definite article ‘al’ (the), e.g. al-ayatin or al-ayat.
Secondly, the verses you cite do not speak of abrogation but of God’s ability to abrogate any message at His own will. Read Q2:106 in conjunction with Q2:10o-105. The mercurial discussion that the divine author is having with the listener is that He is omnipotent, ready to change (at will) any message. Do not take my words for it. You can read the verses for yourself (All translations are from Muhammad Asad’s):
2:102 and follow [instead] that which the evil ones used to practice during Solomon's reign - for it was not Solomon who denied the truth, but those evil ones denied it by teaching people sorcery; and [they follow] that which has come down through the two angels in Babylon, Hurut and Marut-although these two never taught it to anyone without first declaring, "We are but a temptation to evil: do not, then, deny [God's] truth!" And they learn from these two how to create discord between a man and his wife; but whereas they can harm none thereby save by God's leave, they acquire a knowledge that only harms themselves and does not benefit them - although they know; indeed, that he who acquires this [knowledge] shall have no share in the good of the life to come. For, vile indeed is that [art] for which they have sold their own selves -had they but known it!
2:103 And had they but believed and been conscious of Him, reward from God would indeed have brought them good-had they but known it!
2:104 O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not say [to the Prophet], "Listen to us," but rather say, "Have patience with us," and hearken [unto him], since grievous suffering awaits those who deny the truth.
2:105 Neither those from among the followers of earlier revelation who are bent on denying the truth, nor those who ascribe divinity to other beings beside God, would like to see any good [86] ever bestowed upon you from on high by your Sustainer; but God singles out for His grace whom He wills-for God is limitless in His great bounty.
2:106 Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar one. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?
The same can be said for verses Q16:99-108 where God rebukes those who think that He is a sterile monad. Annulling a message is, rather, the Qur’an’s presentation of omnipotence, not verse abrogation.
Lastly, detrimental to the abrogationists is the problem of verse selection. Which verses are to be annulled? The choice seems arbitrary. In any case, it is not my problem.
Moving on…
You state:
“The term "mushrikun" is pretty elastic. Polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers, those guilty of "shirk." Idolaters (mushrikun) can be applied to almost anyone who rejects Islam including Jews and Christians (who are guilty of "shirk" for ascribing partners to God).”
One can apply the term to ‘almost anyone’ without Qur’anic justification. The Qur’an clearly designates the term ahl-al-kitab (people of the book) for Jews and Christians.
You state:
"It is Qur'anic and very much in the Sunnah. You might deny the validity of the ahadith-- Muhammad's acts, words and judgments-- but this is not true of the vast majority of the Muslim world, is it?"
Strawman. I did not deny the validity of the Hadith literature, rather I said that if the Hadith tradition and tafsir tradition are in contradiction with the Qur’an the former are to be rejected, at least that aspect that is in discord with the Qur’an. If Muslims fail to get that…oh well, that’s not my problem.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
at February 5, 2007 12:08 AM
jehana,
In the past you have basically asserted that you are a "moderate" American muslim.
Have you ever debated jihadis, or watched debates or discussions among your fellow believers-in-islam (while no non-muslims are around)? If so, is Ayaan Hirsi Ali's observation, "every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win." accurate, in your experience?
What would you suggest should be done to elimin
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)