| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Robert Spencer wrote recently about how some interlocutors will deny anything – anything – if they think they can use the denial to their advantage. He adduced as examples recent controversies over the closure of the gates of ijtihad and the arrangement of Qur’anic suras. As to the gates of ijtihad being closed, it is those Bright Young Reformers who, having failed to keep us from noticing that they are indeed closed, and have been for almost a thousand years, now go on to tell us that if we only give them money, money, money (and the Carnegie and other foundations, and universities, and Western governments, have been shelling out like crazy to every Muslim "Reformer" with his hand out), they -- those Bright Young Reformers -- will just swing those gates wide open, wide enough for the quadrigas of these brave gladiators to drive straight on through. (Oops, those details come from the time of Rome, and therefore of real universal and deep-seated Jahiliyya or Ignorance.)
As to the arrangement of the suras, the point on which Serge Trifkovic caught out Dinesh D'Souza (who promptly wrote about it as a mere matter of "Trivial Pursuit"), why do they matter? Well, if you are attempting to find out which suras are unlikely to have been subject to "naskh" or "abrogation," you will naturally wish to find out which are later in time. And in finding out which are later in time, you might think, if you did not know differently, that those suras with low numbers -- such as Sura 9, the most violent of them all -- were surely the ones that had been abrogated by later ones.
But you would be wrong. Sura 9 is numbered 9 not because it is one of the earliest, but because of its length. In fact, Sura 9 is either the last or second-to-last of the Suras, which means it is of very great authority indeed.
That's why it matters. And that's why D'Souza's attempt to dismiss his lack of such knowledge as "trivial," is so wrong. That he then goes on to say that Trifkovic didn't answer his, D'Souza's, own question in reply -- "When did Iran become Shi'a?" -- though Trifkovic was singlemindedly at this point pursuing his quarry. He was not going to let go of his hot pursuit until D'Souza had, for god's sake, answered the question. And in truth, the answer to D’Souza’s question is not nearly as important as questions about the Qur'an, the alpha and omega of Islam.
The question of when Iran became Shi'a is of interest, but it is not indispensable to one's understanding of Islam, as is a comprehension of how the Qur'an works, how it is arranged, what parts of it can be taken as immune to abrogation, and which parts subject.
No doubt when one first reads, as D'Souza did, somewhere in Bernard Lewis that Shi'ism begins with Arabs, not Persians, and was embraced late by the Iranians, is of interest. But what does it tell us? How does it affect, say, our understanding or appreciation of the Shi'a-Sunni split in Iraq, and beyond Iraq, today? In fact, it has no bearing on the matter. But if Infidels thinking that because there are 114 Suras numbered consecutively, a certain Sura 9 must surely be among the earliest and therefore among those most subject to abrogation, then we have a problem, and not only in Houston, but everywhere that innocent Infidels may reside.
Shi'ism could once be found in places were it is now virtually extinct, and in the earliest centuries was not dominant in Iran (Persia) as it now is. But knowing or not knowing that is not more important than knowing exactly when Calvin and Zwingli existed, or where, or finding out when this or that place became predominantly Protestant during or after the Reformation. Or it might be akin to not knowing exactly when the Gallicanism came into the French church, or when Henry VIII destroyed the monasteries, and got his divorce. Not knowing when the Council of Nicaea took place is no doubt a fault, and so is not knowing exactly in what century Christianity was brought to England, or for that matter to China, but it would be far more scandalous if someone were teaching in a divinity school who did not know the most elementary doctrines of Christianity. D'Souza doesn't see that, because he can't make sense of Islam, Islam as a belief-system, Islam as a politics and geopolitics, Islam as a working-out, in time, by Muslims of the exigencies of their demanding, and dangerous-to-Infidels faith.
Some questions matter, some don’t. Discerning which go into which category itself requires some concentrated study – study which those who presume to instruct persist in shirking.
Posted by Hugh at March 11, 2007 8:27 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Don’t worry Hugh. Now D’Souza (on his blog) is saying that there is no difference between Shi’a and Sunni. There is, of course, little theological difference if one omits the political dimension and rituals, which someone who projects their Christian conception of religion would tend to do. His conclusion is that Sunni fighting with Shia isn’t religiously motivated.
While he obliterates one distinction he invents another. D’Souza creates this distinction between “traditional” and “radical” Islam. It’s hard to keep track of all the categories that Westerners invent. Traditional, radical, militant, fundamentalist, political, etc! In the Islamic world it is simply call Islam. They do refer to a revival of Islam. I tend to use that phrase “Islamic Revival” often. It has the right emphasis.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 11, 2007 9:02 AM
"Islamic Revival" is one possibility. "Islamic Recrudescence" is another. Still another is the "Recrudescence of the Jihad" which makes clear that while the putting into practice of the duty of Jihad has not always been possible, the doctrine itself is permanent.
What caused the Recrudescence of Jihad are three main things:
1) The ten trillion dollars in oil money received since 1973 by the Muslim members of OPEC.
2) The millions of Muslmis allowed into the Bilad al-kufr, or Lands of the Infidels, where they have been allowed to settle behind what they themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, without any intelligent investigation having been undertaken by Western governments, and having ignored the warnings of a few who knew what Islam was all about, but instead preferred to go with the apologists (such as so many members of MESA Nostra, which google), or the vast army of Western hirelings who, eager to "recycle petrodollars" for their own benefit, became, as ARAMCO itself once was so effectively, apologists for the rich Arabs, and therefore for Islam.
3) The exploitation by Muslim propagandists, who have learned in the West the effectiveness of audiocassettes (which Khomeini's aides used to tape him in Neauphle-le-chateau and send those tapes all over Iran), videocassettes, satellite television channels (Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar), and the Internet, which are used to spread the True Faith of Islam even unto the farthest village of illiterate Believers who are now no longer uninformed about, not made-up contents of Islma, but the full contents of Islam of which they might formerly have been only vaguely aware.
These are the main reasons for the Recrudescence of Jihad. Other, lesser reasons include the Encounter With the West, that is the knowledge of how much more advanced the West is, and in the confusion and resentment this causes -- especially among Muslims in that West -- a confusion and resentment that is prompted by the belief that Islam simply is superior, and must triumph. and Muslims must rule, and so how can it be that filthy and despised kuffaar can seemingly be so far advanced, and what's more, not yield, as by right they should, to Muslim demands for changes in the legal, political, and social arrangements of the lands which, currently but only temporarily, those Infidels still possess or still dominate.
For Muslims know that what Muhammad said is true:
"Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated."
Posted by: Hugh at March 11, 2007 9:16 AM
But you would be wrong. Sura 9 is numbered 9 not because it is one of the earliest, but because of its length. In fact, Sura 9 is either the last or second-to-last of the Suras, which means it is of very great authority indeed...
Why oh why do I have this icky feeling that D'Souza's question is intended to confound the casual infidel spectator? Nothing more nor less?
Surely, even the most cursory examination of islam and its nefarious sura 9, "subject to 'naskh' or 'abrogation,'" could not have escaped the searching eye of even a semi-serious researcher, let alone someone like D'Souza, on the subject islam.
D'Souza might just as well have asked "why did the CHICKEN, cross the road?;" or "WHY, did the chicken cross the road?;" or better still, "why did the chicken cross the ROAD?" -- none of the forms relevant to the topic per se, yet useful tools to derail the critical examination of islam.
Speaking of money, might D'Souza be on the take? What exactly is his secondary gain by asserting why he must know to be absurd, no, let me re-phrase that, a lie regarding islam?
He has gained time and stalled the thought process of the unstudied and unsuspecting ifidel spectators which make up the masses of Western civilization,
Yet, such worthless questions and pointless haranguing are effective weapons that are employed merely to dull the mind and infect the inquisitive with a sense of ennui, which I believe is intended to stall further serious inquiry.
Meanwhile, the islamic hoards are on the march and approach the gates of Rome with ill intent!
When the slaughter is at hand, it will be interesting to watch D'Souza deny it still even with a scimitar to the throat.
at March 11, 2007 9:37 AM
Hugh...
Thanks for the education. Iran is vying for leadership of the Muslim world. They have an inferiority complex due to only 11% of Muslims being Shi'ia. Shi'ites are the country bumpkins of Islam. They are the backward uneducated minority in many Sunni nations
Sunni populations can convert to Shi'ia if Iran does very well. This what Amadinejad & Ayatollahs would love to make happen. Islamic youths are more flexible and might abandon Sunni preachers for militant Shi'ite ones if Iran produces results, bragging rights, elevated Muslim honor by taking on Israel and America.
Posted by: dennisw at March 11, 2007 10:07 AM
I'm a gay conservative and I've taken it upon myself to try to get my sexually deviant peers to realize the threat of Jihad. So I get to deal with probably the greatest amount of Leftist delusion groupthink politically correct arrogant sanctimonious ignorance mixed with just general mental illness there is. (Some days are more fun than others).
I've taken to the following approach when engaging them in debate... Very early in the debate I already proclaim the usual counter arguments that I'm about to be bombarded with and state clearly that the motive is to change the subject from Islam to anything , so that Islam is never discussed.
I say I will be expecting to hear from all the suddenly new bible scholars, and I'm going to hear from suddenly new language experts who will tell me that English isn't verbose enough, or I will get master literary professionals who will tell me I'm taking everything out of context.
I am going to hear from new gay church experts who will tell me that the Torah is used by trillions of people every day to slaughter people with AIDS.
That usually mutes the usual critics since I found they hate having thier behavior be pointed out to them before they even do anything.
Inevitably, some college punk will chime in stating that I'm a dumb retard hypocrite and if I would just read a book I would see how utterly stereotypically gay I was.
So that's when I get to ask them.. if you're such an expert on Islam.. how is the Koran arranged?
That's the question that seperates the men from the faggots (time for rehab?).
The order of the Koran is one of those things that can't possibly be guessed at or assumed. So not knowing that exposes the person to be totally without any information of Islam. They dont know Islam 101. Heck they dont know Islam .00001.
By shooting down their arguments before they can make them is the best approach to keep the discussion from veering off to anything except Islam.
The order of the Koran serves to show those whose Political Correctness compells them to become apologists for a religion that wants to kill them do so with their eyes wide shut.
Sorry for the vulgarity of this message. Some days I'm angerier than others.
Posted by: Vince at March 11, 2007 10:09 AM
Great message, Vince.
Here are some types of Instant Experts (TM) to encounter and pre-empt:
* Experts on Medieval Spain
* Experts on Turkey post-1922...but almost never on the conquests and warfare of the Ottoman empire (1299-1922)
* Experts on the "many Muslims I know who are peaceful"
And here are more good questions to ask your debating partners:
* What does Islam say about Mohamamad as a role model?
* Who was Aisha?
* What happened at Khaybar Oasis?
* Who were the Banu Qurayza?
* I say something about Islam, and you respond about Muslims. Most Catholics don't practice birth control; does that mean Catholicism condones it? (From Robert)
* If there is nothing "inherently" wrong with Islam, please name what is inherent to Islam.
* If Islam is not a threat, what would make it a threat in your eyes?
* If there are so many non-threatening interpretations of Islam, please point to one mainstream Islamic group in the US or worldwide that has rejected the doctrine of domination of non-Muslims?
at March 11, 2007 11:09 AM
I have a question concerning abrogation. How can we know what are the early suras? How can we know what has been abrogated? (Someone must have done this study already)
Posted by: calatrava at March 11, 2007 11:47 AM
Regarding denying anything if it can be used to their advantage, there is a column in "Current" editorial section of today's Los Angeles Times by Saree Makdisi, titled "in the war of words, the Times is Israel's ally." In the article she states that "recognition of Israel's right to exist" is a meaningless phrase. But in making this statement, one wonders if it is really to the Palestinians' advantage.
As Dr. Phil would say, "How's this working for you?" Two wars were fought over fifty years ago and ended in stalemates because the obvious loser wouldn't accept defeat. Today South Korea flourishes while North Korea languishes in its poverty. Today Israel has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East while the Palestinians continue to "resist" their predicament. The fact that 500,000 Palestinians are still living in refugee camps inside unoccupied Gaza is symbolic of their intransigence. Rather than being meaningless, their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist is the very cause of their continued misery.
at March 11, 2007 11:57 AM
These issues are the same ones many who have taken the facts of Islam to the front line of Internet forums have dealt with for years on a day to day basis.
The dialog is not always polite and some people are inconvincible because of a myriad or reason most notably "Christianity is the same" and "I'm a bigot"
But the reward is some will listen and learn and check the facts to know for sure , because no one can tell you what Islam is you have to see it for yourself.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 11, 2007 12:07 PM
“Recrudescence of Jihad” is clearly more exacting and centers the focus on what’s important. And, of course, it was a wise choice to call this website “Jihad Watch.” The concern is obvious from the title. Now to explain to people not only what Jihad means but what recrudescence means …
Vince: “…who will tell me that English isn't verbose enough …” I assume they mean the language isn’t rich enough. In either case they haven’t been reading Hugh!
at March 11, 2007 12:15 PM
Hugh: Concerning the Sunni-Shi'a split.
Time magazine March 12th has the cover story "Sunni's vs Shi'ites - Why they hate each other" "What's really driving the civil war that's tearing the Middle East apart?" by Bobby Ghosh in Baghdad.
This appears to be a pretty good account of what's happening over there between the two groups, right down to point that you always raise, namely, that a U.S. pullout or, as Bobby Ghosh puts it, reduction of U.S. forces would lead to all hell breaking loose.
It also highlights the unbridgeable divide between the Sunni and Shi'ite, and the almost impossible likelihood of the U.S. ever being able to bring peace to Iraq.
at March 11, 2007 12:17 PM
I have a question concerning abrogation. How can we know what are the early suras? How can we know what has been abrogated? (Someone must have done this study already) - Calatrava
Calatrava--
Here's a table for quick reference:
WikiIslam: Chronological Order of the Qur'an
And a site for more depth, with some sources cited:
A Google search of "chronological order of Quran" will turn up many different pages with similar stuff.
Posted by: MarisolJW at March 11, 2007 12:22 PM
witness said
Speaking of money, might D'Souza be on the take? What exactly is his secondary gain by asserting why he must know to be absurd, no, let me re-phrase that, a lie regarding islam?
According to the San Diego Reader in April 2005,
Six years ago, he and his wife bought their home in Fairbanks Ranch*. The nearly 8000-square-foot house has six bedrooms, seven and a half baths, and a four-car garage, where they keep their maroon 1992 Jaguar XJS. A circular drive fronts the French country stone house. The cathedral-like front room, with its full-length mirrors and tapestries, has an 18th-century French decor of (veneered) golden maple burl furniture. The slick floors echo like a museum as one walks through. In his office, there's wall-to-wall leopard-print carpet; floor-to-ceiling bookcases are stocked with titles in history, politics, and philosophy. The view out back features a bright blue pool and the arboretum-like landscape.
* Note: Fairbanks Ranch is a gated community in the zipcode (92067) which is the second-most expensive housing area in the country.
I can only hope that Robert, who is also a NYT bestselling author, and who also does paid speaking engagements, is living such an opulent lifestyle.
Posted by: special_guest at March 11, 2007 12:54 PM
MarisolJW,
Thanks so much for posting those links on koranic suras. I've had the same question for a long time.
It might be a minor question, but when were the verses put to paper? I doubt Mohammed had a stenographer at his side. The gospels of Jesus were spread orally for decades after the crucifixion. How long did it take for the suras to find their way to print?
Are the verses within each sura in order by "revelation"? Another minor question, but helpful in understanding the Koran.
Thanks again.
Posted by: PMK at March 11, 2007 1:17 PM
I was heavily engaged last night on this townhall.com article:
You can see that I do try to use as many facts and to link to other sources as much as I can.
at March 11, 2007 1:26 PM
I conclude the "answer the question for god's sake" is the false god and thee God expression as in everything that is what is based upon D'Souza's ignorance like so many people's.
Bernard Lewis is somehow held up to be the Encyclewisa Britanica when in fact he and D'Souza are taking snapshots in time and miss the entire base of fact.
I really hope people will read this as you will Mr. Fitzgerald as the historical facts blow D'Souza and Lewis out of the water.
One has to first understand who the Semites are and their history. Mesopotamia was the home to the most advanced of cultures. It was the birthplace of Abraham who was called out of it.
It was also the devil's sun god, moon god, fertility god and lord of the flies god of the Philistines.
A god knows as allah of the moon diety would spawn from the region too. The entire region was pagan and via Simon Pater (the sorcerror of the Bible) it took root in the Universal or Catholic religion built upon the oracle of Vaticanus. The Easter rites built on Passover as were the risen sun rites of the Christ mass incorporated pagan and God given holy days, so the entire world is mixed up on who God is.
In this God created a nation of priests for Himself known as Israelites from the line of Abraham. Two houses were formed in this. Samaria or the Lost 10 tribes and Judea.
The northern kingdom from sin was exiled by God from Samaria, Bashan or Israel by the Assyrian empire of Ninevah.
These peoples of Israel and Judea in Egyptian paintings were blondes, brunettes, red heads and ranged from white (Laban who was the father of Rachel and Leah, Jacob's cousins name means whitish) and were dark skinned as the woman in the Song of Solomon relates.
As the northern tribes were settled into what is now northern Iran and into Iraq, they were given Assyrian and Persian names as peoples. Cimmerians for Samarians and Khumri for Omri who was a powerful king of the Israelites.
Later these "sons of God" would have their nationalities known in Asia as Aryan (once again a slang off of Samarian) and Scyths who would dominate central Asia and are now giving Chicoms the fits as all these dead red headed white people are buried in China and were the civilizing force of their entire Chinese culture.
Through immigration these Scyths came into Europe and known to the Romans as Germani, Celts, Goths, Royal Scyths and the Angle Saxons. The Scot Declaration of Arboroath states they are a lost tribe of Israel.
America due to Biblical sifting is of this Israelite clan of Gilead and Mannaseh, sons and children of Joseph in a "vine trailing over the wall".
In the long explanation, I apologize, but these Israelites civilized and advanced peoples everywhere they went. The Russ of Sweden are Israelites and led and gave name to modern Russia as example.
This leads back to the Iranian as these Persians came into an area which was vacated by the Samarians known as the Aryan. This touches on D'Souza's ignorance as these same civilizing warlike Samarians are the root to the ancient Indian sagas and why the Indo European language progresses into Europe from Asia. It was these 10 exiled tribes kicking the stuffing out of every empire they came up against.
It is also the reason Hitler was so crazy in looking for the "Aryan" or the sons of God. He and the German heirarchy with Rockefeller funding made a huge mistake in modern Germans like Persians moved into an area known by another name Germani and became known as those peoples. (It would be like Mexicans coming to America and being known as Americans when they are a different people.)
Modern Germans are exiled Assyrians who followed after the Persians conquerred them. So Hitler in looking for this special people put the wrong label on Germans. In a strange twist, Germans are of Semite origins and yet they were thinking themselves superior to Judeans who are Semite and part of the very people Hitler was searching for.
This all gets very twisted by ignorant people and people with agendas of the worst kind.
All of this matters, because D'Souza and Lewis neglect the origins which are tied to the gods of the region who are literal and demonic. Muhammed "heard" Hebrew and Christian literal Words of God and put an Ishmaelite spin on it to make Arabic peoples superior and a chosen race. The Persians who had Cyrus whom God chose have now reverted to the ancient rites of the moon god which is part of the "gods of destruction" which plague the region.
Until the "experts" stop taking moments in history snap shots and delve into the dynamics of what is going on no one is going to understand or leave the violence behind.
I was attacked awhile back for stating the Talmud is a skewed and hateful document. It is in fact a sourced document out of the Jewish Babylonian captivity and why references in it have the same horrid sound as Muslim texts to the christian identity cult. It is this Nimrod religious system which has infected most of the world's religions. The Toran (law) the Tanakh (Old Testament prophets) are what God gave the Judeans. The Talmud is a mystic interpretation out of Babylon.
Those are facts which matter as D'Souza quotes a Lewis who takes fragments like Muhammed and creates a misunderstanding which plunges the world into further chaos and larger wars.
These are religous wars and the source of them is "the mighty hunter before the Lord" in Nimrod who wanted to become a god.
It is no accident how these nations are lining up in old conflicts which are eons old.
Islam did not begin with Muhammed. It is much older than his rants and predates most of the people's now following it when they were but the singlular grandchildren of Shem, Japheth and Ham who fathered these nation states.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 11, 2007 1:42 PM
Special Guest:
"I can only hope that Robert, who is also a NYT bestselling author, and who also does paid speaking engagements, is living such an opulent lifestyle."
Not even close.
But thanks for your good wishes.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 11, 2007 1:43 PM
I can only hope that Robert, who is also a NYT bestselling author, and who also does paid speaking engagements, is living such an opulent lifestyle.
Yes, well; affluence isn't a crime BUT it would be interesting to probe the possibility that these particular material excesses might be the fruits of, shall we say, compromise.
Well, Mr. Spencer -- I'll have to buy some extra copies of your publications I suppose
Posted by: witness at March 11, 2007 2:20 PM
Robert said
Not even close.
There was not even a hint of irony in that part of what I said, I do wish for a materially satisfying and rewarding life for you. But if that opulent lifestyle necessarily comes with a compromise of ones' moral foundation, as it may have for certain other people, then I hope you will find some way to exist without the wall-to-wall leopard-print carpet (ugh!) or the maroon 1992 (gadzooks! surely upgraded by now!) Jaguar XJS in the four-car garage. There are much more important things than "things". And reading your books, it is clear that your moral compass is in excellent working order.
But back to D'Souza, from the same article, D'Souza said:
If I had remained in India, I would probably have lived my entire existence within a one-mile radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical religious, socioeconomic, and cultural background. I would almost certainly have become a medical doctor, an engineer, or a software programmer. I would have socialized within my ethnic community and had cordial relations, but few friends, outside that group. I would have a whole set of opinions that could be predicted in advance; indeed, they would not be very different from what my father believed, or his father before him. In sum, my destiny would to a large degree have been given to me. In America, by contrast, you get to write the script of your own life.... What to be, where to live, whom to love, whom to marry, what to believe, what religion to practice -- these are all decisions that Americans make for themselves.
I find it ironic that D'Souza's source of money, or at least the publicly acknowledged source of his money, comes from his coming to the U.S. as a young immigrant, free to marry the woman of his choice, free to choose whatever religion he wants, free to choose whatever career he wants, free to write books on whatever topic he wants, and then spending his energy convincing us that we need to give up those freedoms and become more like the India he left and the rest of the Islamic world, because if we don't live our lives according to their morality, they will be motivated to attack us.
No, I take that back. "Ironic" is not the right word. "Ironic" is not nearly strong enough.
Posted by: special_guest at March 11, 2007 2:35 PM
PMK--
I wish I had a more comprehensive account of that than I do-- of course, there's the official story concerning the Qur'an, its transmission, and transferrence from oral recitation to written text, versus efforts to identify "what really happened" that raise a great deal of questions about that standard narrative.
From the Qur'an pages run by the Muslim Student Assoc. at USC:
Brief History of Compilation of the Qur'an
Also, the second site I linked above mentions a 4-pdf series, "History of the Quran" by Allamah Abu Abd Allah al-Zanjani available at www.playandlearn.org. I haven't located them yet myself.
Ordinarily, I'd cite the neighborhood stray cat before Wikipedia, but the page below is useful for its surprising balance (Ibn Warraq is cited as a reference), and the fact that it documents its sources well, rather than leaving the reader to take Wikipedia's account at face value:
Origin and Development of the Qur'an covers a good bit of the controversy. (Just scroll past the misformatted bit about the "Satanic Verses" that someone threw in at the top)
Even more is available at answering-islam.de's
Textual Variants of the Qur'an. All of it is fascinating, but particularly the link about manuscript findings in Yemen.
As for your last question about the chronological appearance of verses within suras, I don't know the full answer to this, though the tables at that second site (Chronological Order of Surahs) I linked in my initial posting address some of it.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: MarisolJW at March 11, 2007 2:48 PM
I find it interesting how the bombaxo.com link Marisol gave qualifies ayah 3 of sura 5 as out of place (which by default places it earlier in chronology and vulnerable to becoming mansukh), but leaves verses 5 and 6 in situ, providing opportunity for nasikh of ayah 3 and other dietary restrictions.
005.003
YUSUFALI: Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
005.004-005
YUSUFALI: They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account. This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
Note the divine sanction of eating under compulsion of hunger in 3 - at what point was this verse officially "regressed" in chronology? Finicky prison jihadists certainly feign ignorance of this verse, or at least supply no nasikh verse whilst they complain of right to superior rations.
Also, "Food of the People of the Book" would include swine and animals slaughtered without the tasmiyah invocation. Or at least Kashrut should apply, no?
Also note in 5 the dowers neglected by so many "pious" Muslims these days, even in some areas inverted such that rampant female infanticide is practiced to avoid the "reverse" dowery. How did this become the case?
Perhaps some Muslim troller could enlighten me with something from the Sunnah.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at March 11, 2007 2:59 PM
Special Guest,
I wouldn't want the leopard-print carpet, but my rusting 1999 Toyota will require an upgrade sooner or later. Perhaps in '08. The slanderers who charge me with profiteering should come see where and how I live. Not that they're welcome here, of course.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 11, 2007 3:17 PM
D'Souza's grasping careerism and evident delight in his worldly success -- that Jaguar, that leopard-print -- sickens. But it was tolerable when he was not collaborating, for private gain, in yet another attempt to misrepresent Islam to unwary Infidels, and prolong their confusion. That is intolerable. For that he deserves mockery and attacks from here on out -- with no quarter shown.
Posted by: Hugh at March 11, 2007 3:27 PM
Robert--
And yet there's a certain satisfaction to be had in driving a car until it disintegrates into a heap of fine dust and blows away. My '97 Dodge has no air conditioning or heat, but man, the radio still smokes.
Not literally, though. Not yet.
Posted by: MarisolJW at March 11, 2007 3:28 PM
Marisol,
You remind me of the 1976 Chevy Vega I drove in my palmy, Jimmy-Carter-meetin' days. One day, as Paul McCartney was in the middle of explaining that with a little luck, we could make this whole damn thing work out, the radio just up and died. No smoke or death rattle. Just a quiet slipping into nothingness. The engine imitated the radio shortly thereafter.
Yrs
Robert
at March 11, 2007 3:35 PM
Sorry to hear that RS is not rich yet.
===============
As the subject of artificial distinctions between this-islam and that-islam has come up again, I wonder if the members of the lame-scream media ever reflect on their use of the term moderate-islam.
The clear implication is that less committed, or less literal mohammedanism is less dangerous mohammedanism, and more committed, more literal mohammedanism is more dangerous.
No surprise to anyone here. But do you think they ever notice what they're saying?
Posted by: joeblough at March 11, 2007 3:48 PM
vince: you are my kinda guy and I would like you to keep posting here - your perspective is welcomed here ..
Posted by: drk at March 11, 2007 4:45 PM
"His conclusion is that Sunni fighting with Shia isn’t religiously motivated."
Well, there is simple Muslim bloodlust.
"Still another is the "Recrudescence of the Jihad" which makes clear that while the putting into practice of the duty of Jihad has not always been possible, the doctrine itself is permanent."
Jihad, putting the "crud" back into "Recrudescence".
at March 11, 2007 6:18 PM
Robert said "I wouldn't want the leopard-print carpet..."
Robert, you are a man of taste, as well as a scholar and a gentleman. ;)
Posted by: Shakey_Premise at March 11, 2007 6:27 PM
Yo Vince,
Good to have you aboard. My older brother is a gay liberal and militant about both. He is, in other words, insufferable.
Thanks for your tips on how to handle him. I'm sure nothing I present to him will convince him that he's full of it, but it might compel him to put a sock in it.
I'll take any improvement I can get.
Pray for me while I check my email.
Posted by: USBeast at March 11, 2007 9:27 PM
re D'Souza. I don't necessarily fault someone for not knowing something, or even not knowing something they claim to know when in fact they do not. What I find most contemptible, however, is the sort of willful ignorance that is on full display here. Serge Trifkovic clearly demonstrated that he possesses far more knowledge of the koran than DD (a knowledge, by the way, that is indisputably essential to anyone who is advancing the thesis that American conservatives should make common cause with muslims in opposing the liberal agenda), yet DD dismisses this knowledge as trivial. It is important for people like DD to understand that there will be a day of reckoning when the West finally rises up to meet the muslim threat head on. Whether their punishment for aiding and abetting the advancement of islamic ideology will be a head-shaving, ostracism, revocation of citizenship, imprisonment, or worse is impossible to say. But I believe it will come.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 11, 2007 11:02 PM
Robert, I am sorry to hear that your dedication to raising jihad awareness has not yielded you the dividends equal to the priceless value of increased jihad awareness.
However, something tells me that you are not interesting in becoming an avarice ass or bourgeois butthead; no it seems you have dedicated your life to things that are of greater import than accumilating mountains of stuff. Believe me, your works and writings have cured me of potentially fatal ignorance as well as keeping me on the seat of my pants. Your arguements are as WMDs in the debate against. taqiyyah talking muslims and deceit and deluded dhimmis.
Next time you make it out to Minnesota doing a book sign or appearance, let me know and I will take you to the nearest Chipotle; and even though I like my burritos chicken, for kicks I'll make mine carnitas.
Posted by: senatortombstone at March 12, 2007 12:04 AM
Reading Dinesh's comments about what he might have been and done had he stayed on in Mumbai brought to mind a question which I believe hasn't been asked so far, in the myriad collection of counter arguments to his logic.
If the decadence of the West, mainly driven by the Left, had angered traditional Muslims and caused 9/11, why does that not ripple into other communities. After all, there are a lot of US hating Leftists in Europe, Asia, South America, non Islamic Africa, et al who, aside from resenting the US for its prosperity despite (rather than because) of a much more recent foundation, and in all these countries, there are also a lot of traditional Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Confucians... who would be just as repulsed by the likes of Paris Hilton and Hugh Hefner.
Which then brings up the next question - why doesn't Kahane Chai, Shiv Sena or any other militant organization associated with their particular religions plot terror attacks against the US, just as al-Qaeda does? Wouldn't traditional ________ cheer such moves out of disgust with the West, just as traditional Muslims do?
Incidentally, any idea how successful his latest book has been? I'd assume that since Liberals would shun it, that eliminates some 40% of the population, and then out of Conservatives, since anti-Islamists would shun it, that would leave.... Any idea whether it's in the NYT bestsellers' list?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 12, 2007 3:26 AM
Infidel Pride said
Incidentally, any idea how successful his latest book has been? ... Any idea whether it's in the NYT bestsellers' list?
Don't know, but on amazon.com, D'Souza's "Enemy at Home" is given an average of 3/5 stars, and is ranked #2130 in sales.
For a point of reference, Spencer's "Truth About Mohammad" is given 4/5 stars, and is ranked #287 in sales.
But again, who is rolling in the dough? It seems odd to me. Maybe his wife is a personal injury lawyer, or a top Wall St. broker? Maybe he won the lottery, or got an inheritance from a rich uncle?
Posted by: special_guest at March 12, 2007 4:57 AM
(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.)