go get'em, Robert.

Posted by: SueNC at May 5, 2007 8:21 AM

Thank you for answering KA's lies ,and punching a hole in the bloated gasbag of pervasive ignorance that makes up the body of western knowledge of Islam and Mohammad.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 5, 2007 8:23 AM

well at least they published your letter. That's a good sign. I, for one, wrote to them complaining vociferously about KA's review. It's good to see some allowance for putting the record straight.

Posted by: johndoe at May 5, 2007 8:28 AM

Did Karen leave the convent, or was she expelled? I suspect the mother superior had had enough.

Posted by: rational at May 5, 2007 8:58 AM

Karen Armstrong's book is much better than Robert's because it much more comforting. As Julius Caesar put it: "The people love to be deceived".

Posted by: jewdog at May 5, 2007 9:03 AM

Karen Armstrong was my first exposure to Islam. I found Jihadwatch anyway. At least in my case, the truth prevailed. It is only for the overwhelming evidence that Islam is not a peaceful religion that the vast majority of infidels have a chance to get past the cupidity and credulity of self-appointed fake experts like Armstrong.

It is our job as the informed few to make sure others become aware of the truth about Islam. It cannot be Robert alone; not everyone watches Fox (I for one do not), not everyone is ready to face reality, and many thoughtful people, especially young people, are lost in the self-delusions of the left.

Posted by: Quijybo at May 5, 2007 9:16 AM

The situation here is similar to the reaction of Soviet believers and apologists to critical analysis of Soviet Communism. The critics of Soviet Communism were demonised as anti-soviet haters, even the Pope was vilified in a campaign to marginalize him for his criticisms of the belief-system. Critical analysis of the dogmas of Muhammad and Islam is treated in a similar manner. However, eventually believers and and apologists for Muhammad and Islam will have to accept the painful truth.

Posted by: Frank at May 5, 2007 9:27 AM

Good Show, Mr. Spencer. Too bad they edited out the beginning and ending. As for the ending, I suppose any reference to "political correctness" is verboten! And I do mean "VERBOTEN!"

Nazi Germany is happening again, only with different players, Muslims. As usual, the world is blind until a saturation point is reached.

And what of us, the Cassandra's of the world? Alas, true to the myth, we're not believed, and so condemned. Yet, also like Cassandra, we know we're right.

Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2007 9:43 AM

Well done.

I guess it's not surprising that they left out the first and last paragraphs. The first one might have been deemed too controversial, dangerous or hurtful to Muslims.

The last paragraph was probably too personal as it reflects on the magazine's decision to take Armstrong's views seriously.

(I'm not disagreeing with any part of what Robert Spencer wrote.)

Posted by: Josephine at May 5, 2007 9:48 AM

During the "Nuclear Freeze Movement" of the 1980's I attended (out of curiosity) a meeting-rally in New Jersey. The apologists and believers in the USSR were well represented. The lady who spoke was a "poet" (I never heard of her) who said, "Did you know that in the Soviet Union, unlike America, they build statues to poets and writers"? I was sitting in the front row and politely but audibly said "Does that include Solzhenitsyn"? I've never forgotten how her eyes glittered with fear as she looked at me, nor how so many of the believers there looked at me with an expression like deer looking into the headlights of an on coming car. A few looked at me with great hostility.

One question really rattled their cage. (A woman I knew for a long time (Judy) later said to me (when she heard about my question to the crowd) "You havn't changed, Frank. Don't change".-LOL)

Posted by: Frank at May 5, 2007 10:08 AM

Mr Spencer

A good reposte.

What I find disappointing is that the Financial Times saw fit to edit your letter. Now in the normal course of events, the editor does edit letters for publication. But your letter was not normal, as it was a response from you, the author, to a critical review of his work in the paper. As such, the principled action of the editor should have been to publish your letter in its entirety. I find the action of the editor in this regard to be a lapse of good judgement.

Posted by: DP111 at May 5, 2007 10:10 AM

Robert's questions are rattling a lot of cages. I'm sure Judy would say "Don't change, Robert. Keep asking those questions".

Posted by: Frank at May 5, 2007 10:15 AM

I e-mailed the Editor of the "FT" (Lionel Barber) lauding his decision to print Spencer's Letter as "Robert Spencer is right. Karen Armstrong is wrong."

Can't get much simpler than that! I also said I hoped as an educated person that he was doing something to try and save his country from the darkness that is the Muslims.

Robert's line about (paraphrase) "Any hatred that Armstrong sees in the book must come from the historical sources that I (Spencer) have been faithful to" is, despite being truthful, also soooo guaranteed to get Armstrong's goat! Hurrah!

To "Frank" - your line about Solzhenitsyn was brilliant. Great you put that Moonbat in her place. It's not always easy to think of great ripostes like that on the spot. The response of your interlocutor ("eyes glittered with fear") and of the audience (deer in headlights/hostility) makes me think of the quotation:

"The Truth-Teller must always have one foot in the stirrup."

Best Wishes, Darcy

Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2007 10:37 AM

You bet, Darcy.

Posted by: Frank at May 5, 2007 10:43 AM

I am amazed, but thankful, that the Financial Times printed at least part of Mr. Spencer's letter. It should open a few minds and put some question marks in front of Karen Armstrong's name. It seems that the truth can be so dangerous. I used to be an avid C-Span watcher. After the treatment of Mr. Spencer, in which C-Span followed his interview with a Muslim responder, something I had never seen done before for any author, I rarely watch C-Span anymore.

Posted by: maryrose at May 5, 2007 10:44 AM

Mr. Spencer, I find the word "awesome" in Ms. Armstrong's purported Koranic quotation to be a p.c. ploy. It is a modern pop cliche ("Wow, that's awesome, dude!") that no serious scholar would have used in this context.

I think to more apt word, considering the full Koranic verse, would be "necessary", not "awesome", as in:

"War is a necessary evil."

Especially if plunder and slaves were vital to continuing your "holy" war.

But the most accurate would probably be "grievous", which has enough linguistic shadings to include a loophole, should war later be needed. (Loopholes being Mohammad's favorite tactic, freely provided by Allah whenever the "prophet" desired something, like his nephew's wife, etc.).

I guess the Financial Times had to edit something to show their power.

Someone in the readership at JW/DW who lives in the U.K. needs to write a snailmail to the editor and quote the excised portions of Mr. Spencers's text, then ask why the paper was trying to whitewash the Islamically-documented pedophilia of the "prophet".

If Islam is proud of it, why shouldn't it be reported?

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 5, 2007 10:54 AM

profitsbeard, I hope someone in the UK who comes here takes your advice.

Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2007 10:58 AM

Profitsbeard,

The word in Arabic is "kabir," which can be translated "great," or "awesome" as Armstrong has it -- I don't know what translation she is using -- or "grave," "serious," etc.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 5, 2007 11:13 AM

Robert, your Black Zionist Arts are most keen.

Posted by: VileInfidelNeocon at May 5, 2007 11:19 AM

Mr. Spencer could have added that anyone contemplating the naïve idea that Muslims are instructed to make war only defensively should ask themselves how the mid-East, after being largely Christian, Jewish and other, became Islamic shortly after Muhammad’s death – Koran seminars?

Besides, almost anything, a nation’s culture for instance, can be called an offence or threat to Islam and hence made to justify "defensive" Jihad.

There really needs to be a major Spencer – Armstrong debate. Perhaps a letter writing campaign to the UN demanding for the public interest & edification, that their Historian of Religion debate Mr. Spencer.

Posted by: FM at May 5, 2007 11:28 AM

Hopefully, a response by Karen is imminent. A steady escalation between the two will only further serve to expose Armstrong's willful ignorance of Islam.

She should be publically shamed out of all credibility.

Posted by: awake at May 5, 2007 11:35 AM

Whenever something goes poorly for me, Theodore Roosevelt’s Man in the Arena statement is comforting:

'It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.'

The thing about Robert Spencer is that lots of people throw mud at him, but every time they do, he seems to get cleaner. Keep fighting the good fight, and thank you.

Posted by: pez at May 5, 2007 11:46 AM

Several other comments have already addressed the excluded sections of the letter, but I feel the need to pile on:

According to the hadith I'm familiar with, Muhammad married Aisha when she was seven and had sex with her at age nine. Are there reliable Islamic sources that contradict this? Or is it "controversial" simply because it shows Muhammad to be a pedophile?

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at May 5, 2007 11:48 AM

I couldn't figure out why Glenn Beck is so enamored of the idea that Islam is really a peaceful and "moderate" religion being hijacked by "radicals", until I heard him on his radio show the other day recommending Karen Armstrong's book _Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time_. If anybody reading this can set him straight, please do it.

Posted by: aynrandgirl at May 5, 2007 12:04 PM

I guess I should have checked Dhimmi Watch today before commenting above. Hugh goes in depth on the subject of Aisha in a new post.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at May 5, 2007 12:04 PM

Mr. Spencer,

Although you are correct in stating the Tabari verse, what you fail to realize is that there are a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date. Some are vague, others give widely varying dates. You chose the one which fits your interpretation the best. Karen uses the verses which are used the most often in mainstream Islamic discourse and recognized as correct, something which you don't know anything about nor even attempt to participate in. Yes, people will respond saying that "just because the verse exists, then it must be true" justification. Usual when people are put into a corner about Islamic sources. It might work here, but unfortunately for you all not much outside the level of this discourse.

Just doing some thinking...

Posted by: Watcher at May 5, 2007 12:07 PM

Watcher-

Then why did the Ayatollah Khomeini legalize 9 as the age of marriage in Iran?

Using the wrong sources of Islamic texts?

Better not suggest that.

(Things didn't work out well for Salman Rushdie when he questioned Khomeini's Koranic competence.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 5, 2007 12:27 PM

... the raid took place during a sacred month, when war was forbidden.

Since when is 8 armed crime gang members sneaking up behind a group of four businessmen and shooting them in the back with arrows a military operation, or a raid, or a war?

The "expedition" to Nakhlah was not war; it was a felony murder in the act of armed robbery. It was not an act of war; it was a crime gang operation.

Don't be so kind to Mohammed; don't be so kind to Moslems. They're all goddamned criminals, and you know it.

Clean up your language.

Why is it that even Spencer, the only public opponent of Islam on Earth, concedes to these animals in the all-important sphere of language?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 5, 2007 12:32 PM

Mr. Spencer,

I still find the word "awesome" to be a kind of subconscious pandering by Armstong (e.g.- there is a modern Protestant church song "My God is An Awesome God" that she appears to be trying to forge an illegitimate link to, and thereby "soothe" the churchgoers' mind about Islam through this sort of subtle linguistic subterfuge... "we're all the same", etc.).

"Grave" - "grievous" is what I was going for.
(With its other, "sepulchre", implications, as well. Arabic being a language of almost endless interpretive shadings, thanks to its consonant-heavy form.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 5, 2007 12:35 PM

Watcher:

Like everyone else who ever says I misuse or misquote the Islamic sources, you fail to come up with a single specific citation.

I challenge you to do so. I have Tabari right here now as I type this. Volume VII, "The Foundation of the Community." The section headed "The Marriage with 'A'ishah" begins on page 6 and continues to page 8. On the bottom of page 6 Tabari says, "In this year also the Messenger of God consummated his marriage with 'A'ishah." Then he goes on to discuss the date, noting that accounts differ as to whether it was 7 or 8 months after his arrival in Medina. Then Tabari says: "He had married her in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadijah. At that time she was six or, according to other accounts, seven years old." So she must have been nine, or at most ten, when he consummated the marriage.

Tabari then quotes a hadith, giving the isnad in detail, and quoting Aisha as saying: "...my marriage was consummated when I was nine..." Then the rest of the section explains that the consummation took place during the month of Shawwal, but no other age is given for Aisha at the time of the consummation other than nine.

Same thing in Tabari Volume IX, "The Last Years of the Prophet." Aisha is quoted on page 131: "The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old." Then two other ahadith are given, on the same page, each with its isnad chain, and both say she was nine.

So you say other ages are given for Aisha at the time of the consummation of the marriage, and that those other ages are given in Tabari. All right. I know of passages that seem to support her being older indirectly, but none that come out and say explicitly that she was older. So quote him, please, with the volume number and page number. I have all 39 volumes right here in my office, and I'll check where you direct me.

Looking forward to it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 5, 2007 12:36 PM

Don't hold your breath, Mr.Spencer. ;-)

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at May 5, 2007 12:41 PM

What's more, Watcher, if Aisha's being nine is not understood as true in "mainstream Islamic discourse," how do you explain the following?

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that over half of the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty. In early 2005 a Saudi man in his sixties drew international attention for marrying fifty-eight times; his most recent bride was a 14-year-old he married in the spring of 2004.

Child marriage enjoys the sanction of law and custom. Time magazine reported in 2001: "In Iran the legal age for marriage is nine for girls, fourteen for boys. The law has occasionally been exploited by pedophiles, who marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them. In 2000 the Iranian Parliament voted to raise the minimum age for girls to fourteen, but this year, a legislative oversight body dominated by traditional clerics vetoed the move. An attempt by conservatives to abolish Yemen’s legal minimum age of fifteen for girls failed, but local experts say it is rarely enforced anyway. (The onset of puberty is considered an appropriate time for a marriage to be consummated.)"

The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”

In early 2007, severe drought in Afghanistan led some Afghans to sell their daughters into marriages – including girls as young as eight years old – to buy food. One Afghan mother explained: “I need to sell my daughters because of the drought. We don’t have enough food and the bride price will enable us to buy food. Three months ago my 15-year-old daughter married.” Other girls have been sold to make good on opium debts. An Afghan girl named Saliha recounts: “I was 13 when my father married me off to a 20-year-old man, whose father had given a loan to my parents and they were unable to return the amount or the quantity of opium.”

Why is all this happening, unless it bears the sanction of Muhammad's example -- or more precisely, why is all this happening, if Aisha wasn't really nine when she had sex with Muhammad, and every Muslim knows that, and so child marriage has no more justification in Islam than it does in anything else?

Looking forward to your explanation.

Just doing some thinking.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 5, 2007 12:44 PM

I suspect that under the ridiculous British libel laws the last line of Robert's letter could have been actionable. I think the statement, if a criminal libel, would have had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt rather than the balance of probabilities - the FT might well have won but it would have been expensive.
The first excision was probably pure cowardice: who needs something like the cartoons row blowing up about a mere book review?(!)

Posted by: wallyUK at May 5, 2007 12:52 PM

... the ridiculous British libel laws ...

England needs a Constitution. Ain't gonna get one; but they sure as hell need one.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 5, 2007 1:00 PM

The Ayatollah Khomeini - a total pervert, pedophile, and child-rapist.

This was the religious leader of Iran.

Mr. Spencer - was Khomeini held in reverence by other Muslims as well, i.e. in other Islamic countries?

Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2007 1:30 PM

Darcy

Among Shi'ites, yes.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 5, 2007 1:31 PM

Aren't libel, slander, defamation of character, etc. actions committed by Miss Karen Armstrong against Mr. Spencer -and now public record - subject to legal suit in court of law ... ?
Seems that this is an "open and shut case" in favor of honesty, integrity, truth (Mr. Spencer) vs. half-truths and outright lies (Miss Armstrong). Winning such suit could be beneficial in several practical ways: monetary gain (which could possibly be used to enhance/expand works of JW/DW), publicity for JW/DW, Mr. Spencer et al, and perhaps forcing the truth out of Miss Armstrong (and her backers).
Mr. Spencer needs to take Miss Armstrong to court(and drag as many of her hidden backers into the light as well). Doing so would benefit not only Mr. S but also would benefit the truth (vis-a-vis "the relgion of submission").

Posted by: TINBH at May 5, 2007 1:42 PM

Interesting comments & opinions - As with most comments and opinions about topics such as religion and politics, the truth tend to lie somewhere in the middle.

Have a look at this piece. Care to offer any comments anyone? Call me antisemitic or a self hating Jew if you will, but I think the author has a point!

The Palestinian Christian Is An Endangered Species
By Prof Abe W Ata
02 May, 2007
Countercurrents.org

When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.

Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification “Christian” includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.

So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?

We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.

The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone.

Less well known are the views of the American Religious Right. Strangely, they find the liberation of Iraqis from a vile dictator just, but do not find it unjust for us to be under military occupation for 38 long years.
Said Senator James Inhofe (Rep.,Oklahoma): “God Appeared to Abraham and said: ‘I am giving you this land’, the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.”

Inhofe must have got it wrong. Promises are being made to earthly Jerusalem that God did not make. The Holy Land was promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants, as stated in the Bible. These are the Palestinian Muslims, Christians and Jews, who have been living in the land for thousands of years. The Bible never mentioned that God promised it solely to Jews. Anyone can be a Jew, but not anyone can be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. James Inhofe and followers are unable to tell the difference between Jew, Israelite and Israel.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (Rep.,Texas) was even more forthright: “I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank … I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.”

There is a phrase for this. Ethnic cleansing.
Silencing us, from seeking your support and enlightening you about our suffering, goes counter to what Jesus has mandated us to do. We all know that Muslims and Jews get ceaseless support (political, spiritual and financial) from Saudi Arabia and America respectively, while Palestinian Christians get nothing from Australian and other Western “Christian” governments. (The Pope has been an exception.)
Prior to the 1967 war, the Christian youth at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist and other churches in Bethlehem used to pray and rejoice and have a good chat with hundreds of American Christian pilgrims. In particular Texas and California were two places from where many came to visit the Holy Land. Today only fading memories prevail.

Bethlehem has been vacated by Christian families. The remaining Christians are paying the price by experiencing curfews which last for weeks. They remain sandwiched between Muslims and Jews without drawing the slightest concern from the many so-called Western Christians.

So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well … since Christ?

Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done. Palestinian Christians - Anglican, Maronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians - have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religions - Muslims, Jews, Druze and (most recently) Baha’is - for centuries. And we want to do so for centuries more. But we can’t if we are driven out by despair.

We are equally frightened by those who commit suicide bombings. None of us Christians have condoned it or even contemplated the idea. Our commitment to Jesus’ teachings will never shake our resolve in this matter.

American journalist Anders Strindberg makes a clearer conclusion. He says Palestinians are equated with Islamists, Islamists with terrorists. And presumably because all organised Christian activity among Palestinians is non-political and non-violent, the community hardly ever hits western headlines. Suicide bombers sell more copy than people who congregate for Bible study.

What we seek is support: material, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians we grieve for what we have lost, and few people have lost more than us (the Ashkenazi Jews are one). But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends.

Prof Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem, and currently works at the Australian Catholic University. abe.ata@acu.edu.au

Posted by: Ben at May 5, 2007 2:01 PM

That the Muslims are screwed up about sex should not be too surprising given the explanations from Allah. For instance, their “perfect” Koran has Allah – evidently unaware of what the testicles are for - explaining:

086.005
YUSUFALI: Now let man but think from what he is created!
PICKTHAL: So let man consider from what he is created.
SHAKIR: So let man consider of what he is created:
086.006

YUSUFALI: He is created from a drop emitted-
PICKTHAL: He is created from a gushing fluid
SHAKIR: He is created of water pouring forth,
086.007

YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
PICKTHAL: That issued from between the loins and ribs.
SHAKIR: Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Posted by: FM at May 5, 2007 2:07 PM

Watcher my dogs have better control overthemselves, they dont go around breeding female puppies! my God what kind of civialization can exist when young girls are raped by gown old evil men! my hope is that the more muslim women can be educated they can toss out the islamic yoke off their people!
It is no wonder that islamist try their best to prevent girls from getting education. these evil men and monsterous clerics need to stopped, either way by the "Western military" and laws passed and made to bear down on these islamist. Watcher you should be ashamed to even admit your follow that perverted mohummad.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 5, 2007 2:12 PM

Ben

Western elites (political, academic, economic, and their porta voce, the media)ignore the plight of Christians in Palestine for political, self-serving reasons: their purpose is to push the agenda of the Muslims in Palestine, and theirs only.

It's unfair of you to say that the entire Western world ignores your plight. You can't ignore Bat Ye'Or's scholarship or the good works of the Barnabas Fund or the multitude of postings here, at JW, about the situation of all Christians in the Middle East.

Save your anger for those who deserve it, of whom the apocalyptical cooks are just a fringe element.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at May 5, 2007 2:57 PM

"So the verse Ms Armstrong uses to claim the Koran teaches that war is an "awesome evil" actually justifies the setting aside of a moral precept for the benefit of the Muslims."

An "awesome evil", eh? Is this a quote from her? Very telling!

Posted by: champ at May 5, 2007 3:06 PM

Besides Tabari, the hadith collector Bukhari also documents Aisha's marriage and "consummation" of that marriage. I have the following quotes with citation of volume/book/number, however, I have had a difficult time cross-checking them with the only English translation on-line, the Muslim Students Association website, since for some reason they do not catalogue their Bukhari collection by volumes, only by book/number.

Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

And, another one that demonstrates that Aisha had not yet reached puberty when she was with Mohammed:

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (a garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163

Posted by: remote_control at May 5, 2007 3:09 PM

The story of the abuse of little Aisha by Muhammad is sad.

You must bear in mind that in the Muslim calender a year is shorter than in our time system. When you consider the tender age of six years, when little Aisha was married off, and nine years when the marriage was consumated, remember that even those few precious years of innocence which the small girl had before she became the plaything of a pedophile, even those years are shorter than the ages we are typically calculating for our children.

The Islamic calendar (or Hijri calendar) is a purely lunar calendar. It contains 12 months that are based on the motion of the moon, and because 12 synodic months is only 12 x 29.53=354.36 days, the Islamic calendar is consistently shorter than a tropical year, and therefore it shifts with respect to the Christian calendar.

Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at May 5, 2007 3:46 PM

I notice that 'watcher' is 'just doing some thinking....'

Just like UnAmerican.

Typical muslim troll ploy, pretending to be another person.

No real thinking behind his words, either.

Posted by: Gary at May 5, 2007 4:07 PM

Bravo!

Posted by: joeblough at May 5, 2007 4:13 PM

Gary

Watcher is 'An American'. Chose to sneak back in after being banned. As you will notice, no Tabari citations proving the conflicting accounts of Aisha's age - assuming consumating an 11 year old is better than doing a 9.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 5, 2007 4:16 PM

Gary, apparently Hugh chose to ban AnAmerican, so he showed up as Watcher and threw a little tantrum in the 'Rice sides with Islamists in Turkey' thread. I'm guessing he is on a kind of probation right now.

Posted by: deesine at May 5, 2007 4:18 PM

Apparently Robert didn't want An American/Watcher banned. He's too charitable sometimes. An American is not like the buffoon Naseem, he's just plain annoying.

Posted by: wrathofasma at May 5, 2007 4:34 PM

Zarqawi
(the bombed AQ terrorist and headchopper in Iraq) comes to mind: He was found with his 12 year old child bride and a 2 year old baby. Hugh's comment at that time was 'you do the math...'

Ayman Al Zawahiri, OBL's sidekick in the caves of Waziristan, is also said to have remarried with a child, but I can't find anything on it. But if anyone has a link it would be nice to put it up...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 5, 2007 4:39 PM

Bravo! Very good Mr. Spencer. She could not answer you personaly but she went back and did research which she bungled too. Besides her defensive talk if for wolfs, to say you wrote with hate! They always have a poor defense. Their defense is their own words of hate! Truth to them is hate. For their truth is hate. Will she ever beable to debate? Good try on her part for trying but as all of them their cup holds no water. There is no one who can answer the questions of their "religion"! They have no answers. They spout off instead! This is good to read and makes me happier. For you knocked down one obstacle of none truth. Keep going Mr. Spencer. Maybe there will be another who dare try and test their own knowledge of what they truly know of their own "religion".

Posted by: MZ at May 5, 2007 5:27 PM

Hey, I don't care if Mo and his Muslims marry three year olds as long as they keep it to themselves. To paraphrase the fem-lib bumper sticker: "Keep your sharia off my body!".

Posted by: jewdog at May 5, 2007 5:34 PM

The age of consent in G Washingtons time was 10 years old. Child brides were legal and common.
They were nothing more than slaves, sexual and otherwise. 10 year old girls did not lobby congress. for the right to be sold into a life of misery and abuse. Who did? Politicians, who else...and what did they have in common with Mohammad? They were letcherous old men who wanted to play with little girls. Nine-ten-eleven, whats the difference. Any man who cant tell the difference between a nine year old girl and a twenty three year old woman, is either a liar or
a pervert. Either one works.

Posted by: duh_swami at May 5, 2007 5:52 PM

The failure of "Watcher" to immediately respond to Spencer's challenge to supply his evidence points (unless he's been banned) to very sloppy methodology. Before "Watcher" typed his claim and hit that "Post" button, he should have already had his evidence ready, so he could post it in response to any requests for it. If he had to subsequently scramble around trying to find it, it demonstrates a shoddy style of argumentation. (Then again, perhaps he has been away doing more important things in the "real world", since he can't be in front of the screen like us 24/7, eh...?)

Posted by: remote_control at May 5, 2007 6:05 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

I'm with you on verse 2:217, re the Nakhla raid. I've just re-read pp. 286-289 in Ishaq (Guillaume's translation, Oxford Press, 2006). To me it certainly reads like a straightforward opportunistic raid on a caravan, which involved the Muslim raiders--and Ishaq calls them "the raiders"--killing and taking booty.

Abul Kasem has written about the Nakhla raid here, (scroll down) based on accepted Muslim sources.

Some quotes from Ishaq:

p. 288
“The Quraysh said ‘Muhammad and his companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood therein, taken booty, and captured men.’ […] And when the Quran came down about that and God relieved the Muslims of their anxiety in the matter, the apostle took the caravan and the prisoners.”

p. 288, regarding the phrase Al-fitnah is worse than killing, “i.e. ...they have kept you back from the way of God with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people. This is a more serious matter with God than the killing of them whom you have slain.”

*"Expedition of 'Abdullah b. Jahsh and the coming down of 'They will ask you about the sacred month.'"

Some verse was composed by Abdullah b. Jahsh (or else told by Abu Bakr) about the raid, addressing the Quraysh's objections about violating the agreement forbidding killing in the sacred month:

"You count war in the holy month a grave matter,
But graver is, if one judges rightly,
Your opposition to Muhammad's teaching, and your
Unbelief in it, which God sees and witnesses,
Your driving God's people from his mosque
So that none can be seen worshipping Him there.[1]
Though you defame us for killing him,
More dangerous to Islam is the sinner who envies.
Our lances drank of Ibn al-Hadrami's blood [2]
In Nakhla when Waqid [3] lit the flame of war,
Uthman ibn Abdullah [4] is with us,
A leather band streaming with blood restrains him."

Notes.

[1] It is not so simple that the early Muslims were "driven" out of Mecca. There was a great deal of conflict and turmoil on both sides, much of it instigated by Muhammad's constant berating of the polytheists and their religion. Muhammad had also made threats, including death threats (mass slaughter) against the polytheists. From Ishaq:130/Tabari VI:101 “‘The nastiest thing I saw the Quraysh do to the Messenger occurred when their nobles assembled in the Hijr [the standing place in the mosque of the Ka’aba] They discussed Muhammad, saying, “We have never seen the kind of trouble we have endured from this fellow. He has derided our traditional values, declared our way of life foolish, abused and insulted our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, divided the community, and cursed our gods.” What they had borne was past all bearing. Ishaq:130/Tabari VI:101 While the men were discussing him, the apostle came towards them and kissed the [pagan] black stone, then he passed them as he walked round the temple. As he passed, they said some nasty things about him. He went on, and as he passed them the second time, they insulted him again. Then, as he passed the third time, and they did the same. He stopped and said, ‘Will you listen to me, O Quraysh? By Him who holds my life in His hand, I bring you slaughter.’ Tabari VI:102 ‘They were gripped by what he had said. The word he used struck the people so not one could move. It was as though everyone had a bird perched on his head. Even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him, now spoke in a conciliatory way, using the politest expressions they could muster. They said, “Depart Abu al-Qasim, for by Allah, you were never violent.”

(That last statement was made before Muhammad and his men started raiding caravans).

[2] One of the Quraysh slaughtered during the raid.

[3] Waqid b. Abdullah, a Muslim raider who killed al-Hadrami.

[4] One of the prisoners held by the Muslim raiders. He was later released and died in Mecca.

Literal translation of 2:217:

“They ask/question you about the month the forbidden/sacred, fighting/killing in it, say: "Fighting/killing in it (is) big/great and prevention/obstruction from God's road/way and disbelief with (in) Him, and the Mosque the Forbidden/Sacred, and bringing/forcing out its people from it (is) bigger/greater at God, and the treason (is) bigger/greater from (worse than) the fighting/killing, and they still/continue (to) fight/kill you until they return you from your religion, if they were able, and who returns (E) from you from his religion, so he dies and he is disbelieving, so those wasted/failed their doings/works in the present world and (in) the end (other life), and those are the owners/company (of) the fire, they are in it immortally/eternally.”

Source: http://openburhan.pak.net/

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 5, 2007 6:11 PM

Quis custodiet ispos custodes?

Loosely translated: Who shall watch the Watchers?

"Y'all watch him," Duke said. "It would bore me."

Posted by: USBeast at May 5, 2007 6:48 PM

Re "awesome evil," I've checked 16 translations and none of them put together those words in the same phrase like that. Asad says "awesome thing" but not awesome evil. Although Armstrong's phrase is probably best described as an exaggeration, rather than a plain error, the fact that she has put it in quotation marks is highly misleading--unless, of course, there is a translation that puts those words together exactly as she's quoted.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 5, 2007 6:48 PM

How sweet it is!

Armstrong is just like D'Souza. Neither are satisfied with the hole they've dug for themselves ... so they will keep digging deeper and deeper in utter futility.

How sweet it is!

Posted by: LoneRanger at May 5, 2007 7:03 PM

Well, welcome back to column day. I will start at the beginning:

Aisha was married in 622, mush kida? OK:

1. Tabari Volume 4, page 50--states that all of Abu Bakr's children (Aisha being one of them) were born during the pre-Islamic stage (jahiliya) which ended in 610 with the revelation of Iqara. Therefore, Aisha had to have been born earlier, making her at least 12, if not slightly older at the time of marriage.

2. Tabari Volume 1, Page 493--after abu Bakr converted, he was sent by Mohammed to Ethiopia in 615 to escape Meccan persecution and didn't want to take Aisha with them so tried to push up the original marriage. She would have been a minimum of 7 (taking into account the first verse she would have to be a minimum of 12) and if the consumation didn't happen until 3 or so years later that would make her about 15-16.

I'll now cut to your good buddy, ibn Kathir:

Aisha's older sister, Asma, was around 10 or so years older than Aisha, who died in 693 at the reported age of 100, although a lot of people argue that isn't right, we'll go with it as a good round number. In 622, that would make her like 29 and her sister like 19 at the time of marriage.

(Oh, I did a web search and apparently this is up on Wikipedia as well, so feel free.)

I am almost positive that you are going to tell me that the quotes you cite are from Aisha herself so therefore they must be true. However, there weren't exactly birth certificates going around back then, so age is a difficult indicator--especially with the mixture of sun and moon cycles used to calculate years during the pre-Islamic times.

Now for your other matter:
There is no evidence that "Islam" was the driving factor in these child marriages, usually driven by economics (hello, dowries, especially if the United States is ripping up your country like in Afghanistan and you only have two choices to survive on the new cash-driven system: get a dowry for your daughter, or grow some opium). If you can find the fact that the 1/26,000,000 Saudis used the one Tabari verse you've got as justification I will definitely agree he's got some problems. What about the people here who are pedophiles, are they using biblical justification (they are sometimes Christian)--but that argument doesn't work because we're here, and they're over there, so that must be different. You always seem to be so scared of Iran--I personally don't like Khomeni--but he said a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that it is all "Islamic" and instantly gets enshrined into 1 billion people's minds as right. Also, them conservative councilis of Iran usually act out of economics as well (see Tobacco fiasco a little bit earlier, using religion to do something political and economic). Bardo, just because the legal age is there doesn't mean that people actually follow it (perhaps they see the low age as un-Islamic?). Currently, that age hovers around 23 or so years old in Iran according to the statistics bureaus in the country.

--I see a problem here, you are going to argue that "simply because Khomeni (or any other thinker regardless of who they were or what people thought about the saying or whether debate occured or not or the status of that quote today is) said it, it can and will be used indirectly by all Muslims throughout the world, from that point in history on. I think that is the wierdest logic around, but go for it.

Your logic kind of turns into that whole nonsense you and Mrs. Fallici post humus (hope that's right) had with that Reason writer: "if a non-Muslim pees on a wall, it's because they've got to go to the bathroom. If a Muslim pees on the same wall, it's because they are on a jihad against the West."

Just doing some thinking...
(Unlike some commentors on this board, I work. Therefore, I am not able to respond at breakneck pace like you guys.)

Posted by: Watcher at May 5, 2007 7:12 PM

Asad's translation of 2:217 (closest thing I could find to Armstrong's part-quote):

"They will ask thee about fighting in the sacred month. Say: "Fighting in it is an awesome thing; but turning men away from the path of God and denying Him, and [turning them away from] the Inviolable House of Worship and expelling its people therefrom - [all this] is yet more awesome in the sight of God, since oppression is more awesome than killing." [Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they have turned you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and die as a denier of the truth - these it is whose works will go for nought in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide."

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 5, 2007 7:20 PM

A quote that is all she gives you Robert. Our God is the same? How obsurb!! Their God lives on this earth killing people in the worst possible ways!
My God our God I pray is a loving God and gives us free will to choose. She says nothing ever of her own heart of what God has insighted to her, meaning she does not communicate with God. The same with the rest! Where is their message? Where is the book of what Islam or this "religion" inspires to make you want to seek it out to find the truths in life. Instead it gives you a choice such as The Godfather! A deal you cannot resist!
Where is her book of love? Just her saying you do this with hate, err this erks me!! This is their problem! She does not speak with the same consciouness and knowledge and understanding and love. She cannot see the difference between good and bad. She inflicted it right there. Sin. She is judging you as they all think for God as if they were he! I guess they would all get off for killing for they do not know the difference between right and wrong! Damn saying that did not work out in my favor. They are more narciss than real killers here. What example can she give they are what they say they are. I have not seen it nor heard it. I cannot say one thing I know good about them!
Mo-who became pbuh because he wrote excerpts next to readings of the Bible and they took that and turned it into the Queran. Hell I do that! Pbuh- ME! Good work Robert!

Posted by: MZ at May 5, 2007 7:34 PM

Look at that Muhammedan 'watcher' above!

"What about the people here who are pedophiles, are they using biblical justification (they are sometimes Christian)"

Yes, what about them? We have L A W S against that, they know they are breaking the law and they are punished by the law if the're found out.

Islamic 'law' sanctiones pedophiles and child marriages, it is 'halal' to do it because your profit did it.

Still don't get it?

And NO, we have never seen a western pedophile claim that rape or child abuse is in the bible and he just followed his religion.

With respect: You are an idiot, Sir!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 5, 2007 7:52 PM

Here watcher,

A link for you:

http://terror-watch.net/media/womans_rights_islam.wmv

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 5, 2007 7:55 PM

Watcher -- mind if I call you "Rick"? Anyway, it's funny how your earlier statement, "a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date" now becomes a few passages from which you surmise that she must have been older than nine, for none of them actually states her age directly.

But let that pass. The other question is your edition of Tabari. In mine, volume 4 page 50 is discussing the Babylonian kingdom of Ahasuerus, and never mentions Abu Bakr, and vol. 1 doesn't even have a page 493. Did you actually look these up, or just get them off Wikipedia? Anyway, the edition I have is from SUNY Press. Where's yours from?

Anyway, even if these references are accurate, and of course I'm sure they are, as I have seen them before (although I still would like to see them from you, unless you're just relying solely on Wikipedia), they rest on a number of unwarranted assumptions. One is that if all of Abu Bakr's children were born in Jahiliyya, they would have had to have been born before 610. This doesn't make sense, particularly in light of the fact that Islam proper, as marked by the Islamic calendar itself, doesn't begin until the Hijra. It is much more likely that the time of Jahiliyya extended to the Hijra. Your second false assumption is that Aisha would have had to have been seven to have been left behind when Abu Bakr went to Abyssinia. On what do you base this assumption?

Please give me the exact citation from Ibn Kathir. I have his tafsir on hand also, and will check it.

You say: "I am almost positive that you are going to tell me that the quotes you cite are from Aisha herself so therefore they must be true." No, you're quite wrong. I am going to say that since the affirmation that she was nine appears in Bukhari, as well as Tabari, and in other hadith collections as well (including all but one of the Sahih Sittah), it is accorded the presumption of reliability by the great majority of Muslims. You flatly assert that "there is no evidence that 'Islam' was the driving factor in these child marriages," but the evidence is just that: since Muhammad did it, it is good to do, since he is uswa hasana (Qur'an 33:21). Being "scared" of Iran, or "liking" Khomeini or not, is irrelevant -- what matters is that he lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine in imitation of the Prophet, and that's why it is a widely accepted practice in the Islamic world.

Once you dismiss all the evidence I've presented, you then claim that I blame Muslims with no evidence, and invoke Fallaci and Cathy Young as if that makes your point. A neat trick, but hardly convincing. I have given you Bukhari (citations available on request), Tabari, and examples from all over the Islamic world. You have given me spurious references to Tabari, and denied that the evidence from the Islamic world has anything to do with this question -- why? Just because you don't want it to be.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 5, 2007 8:03 PM

Sam Shamoun has addressed the arguments over Aisha's age, child brides, etc., here. Also see part 2 (see link near bottom of article) which addresses the apologetic claims.

Also see the seemingly ambiguous verse 65:4 from the Quran.

Tafsir of Ibn Abbas (65:4)

"(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well."

Al-Jalalayn
(verse 65:4).

"And [as for] those of your women who (read allā'ī or allā'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months - both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter."

Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir (65:4)
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54196

"The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying; (and for those who have no courses...) as for His saying; (if you have doubt...) There are two opinions: First, is the saying of a group of the Salaf, like Mujahid, Az-Zuhri and Ibn Zayd. That is, if they see blood and there is doubt if it was menstrual blood or not. The second, is that if you do not know the ruling in this case, then know that their `Iddah is three months. This has been reported from Sa`id bin Jubayr and it is the view preferred by Ibn Jarir. And this is the more obvious meaning. Supporting this view is what is reported from Ubay bin Ka`b that he said, "O Allah's Messenger! Some women were not mentioned in the Qur'an, the young, the old and the pregnant.'' Allah the Exalted and Most Honored sent down this Ayah, (Those in menopause among your women, for them the `Iddah, if you have doubt, is three months; and for those who have no courses. And for those who are pregnant, their `Iddah is until they lay down their burden.) Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a simpler narration than this one from Ubay bin Ka`b who said, "O Allah's Messenger! When the Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the `Iddah of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, `There are still some women whose `Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur'an. There are the young, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant.' Later on, this Ayah was revealed, (Those in menopause among your women, for them the `Iddah, if you have doubt, is three months; and for those who have no courses.)''

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 5, 2007 8:12 PM

profitsbeard:
I guess the Financial Times had to edit something to show their power.

I am not sure about that.
The sentences they chopped out were red hot, pure dynamite. The first set reveals that under todays standards, Muhammad would be considered a pedophile. Could the FT have left that in?

But good show Robert.
The FT is another paper that tends to liberalism
But the people who read it are astute.
You can be sure that it is another small nail in the coffin of Islam.

Slowly bit by bit, the West is being awakened as to what we really face. Just need to counter the sheer lies about Islam by both Muslims and the liberal left (who believe their own propaganda)

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 5, 2007 8:19 PM

Yes shiek yer'mami -- what's good for the goose is good for gander is a double-edged maneuver, as "Watcher" seems not to realize.

I.e., if we put our American pedophiles on the same plane as Mohammed, that leaves Mohammed open to being considered a criminal. I'm down with that. Just doin' some thinkin'...

Posted by: remote_control at May 5, 2007 8:21 PM

Great Job Robert. The amazing thing of our time is that we still have pre-internet, pre-memri, pre-LGF characters running around thinking they can just lie about things to fit them to their Great Truth; that all cultures were created equal. Acrtually, Armstrong is a big, fat, Occidentalist who has to make an Islam that is suitable for her modern cosmopolitan world. She lies about Islam mainly for the benefit of other white liberals. How about them dates?

Posted by: tokyobk at May 5, 2007 8:30 PM

What a well-oiled (intellectual) machine you are, Robert.

I am not a religious woman, but THANK GOD you exist! And, for whatever drives you to keep up the writing & speaking. The world sorely needs you now.

Posted by: Vee at May 5, 2007 8:33 PM

I almost felt sorry for "Watcher" watching him be pinned to the dissection tray and methodically sliced open. Almost.

"Just doing some thinking"....It doesn't matter if Western Orientalists prove a different sequence of "revelation" of Qur'anic texts, it only matters what is generally believed by Muslims about it. So to best understand them, use their own schedules. Likewise, if the majority of Muslims, pontificating amongst themselves, believe that Aisha was 9 or premenstrual when she was raped by the pedophile, and enact laws, write tomes, etc., to that effect, it doesn't matter if she were 2 or 20. They accept that about their "prophet" and emulate it, that is damning enough, both of their "prophet" and of themselves.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 5, 2007 8:43 PM

"The age of consent in G Washingtons time was 10 years old. Child brides were legal and common."

The difference was Muhammad is thought by the Muhammadans to be uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. No one considers lecherous pedophiles from the 1800's to be perfect models of conduct for all time.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 5, 2007 8:50 PM

Thank you, Khaybar Oasis. Your citations the of the original texts, the awful texts, are an lesson and an instruction.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

So, again I must ask, is there any reason we term a felony murder a "raid" or an "act of war" or are do we frame our question in such a cowardly manner as a matter of obeiseance?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 5, 2007 9:03 PM

Watcher vs. Robert Spencer

Advice for Watcher...

As Sun Tzu would say…

“To refrain from intercepting an enemy whose
banners are in perfect order, to refrain from attacking an army drawn up in calm and confident array:--this is the art of studying circumstances.”

Just doing some thinking...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 5, 2007 9:06 PM

I am sorry that we do not share the same editions. Mine are the same as used in Wikipedia article, although I found that the references were the same later on during the day. It was published in Beirut, and the edition was printed in Arabic, not English. I am sorry to say that it comes down to it you are really good at doing nothing but showing your ability to squeeze as many personal attacks into a single post--which doesn't merit your knowledge of Islamic discourse. Also, your inability to read what I wrote is uncanny (like I said elsewhere, I have found the reading comprehension class and would like to know if I should pay for two seats or just one), so I will say it again:

"...that there was something "Islamic" to do with the marriages..." means:

Find me the statement made by the Saudi citizen that he quoted your Tabari verse to justify his marriages. Find me the statement made by an Afghani farmer stating that he uses his in-depth study of Tabari and his high-level Islamic education (doubt that he has any, can't do much learning when people are shooting) and not simple survival economics to sell off his daughter. Find me the statement that all Iranian men demand to marry women at nine (I quoted an Iranian government source saying that most Iranian women don't get married until their 20s, but you don't care unless it fits your argument.) Find me these things and then we can talk about Islam being a problem. You are trying to connect what somebody said quite some time ago to something that is happening today, and you have no connection, other than the fact that something related to it was written 1000 years ago--which doesn't mean that everybody is using it today, or even discusses it beyond the realms of the Ulema.

As for your Tabari, I managed to drop by a mosque and ask on this particular matter (although you don't think that mosques are worth anything in terms of Islamic knowledge). Tabari's entire justification, the entire presence of that statement in his work, is predicated upon the presence of the Bukhari verses, which have been and are being debated extensively. I know you don't believe this argument, especially when it comes to the verses you quote, but the "isnads" of these Bukhari verses have been and are being questioned, such was the subject of a book published out of al-Azhar (last year I think) about Tabari and Bukhari's fuzzy math and how since the subjects of calculated math weren't established until later, the vast majority of these dates in the sources should not be seen as correct. I will get you the title of it if you want.

Also, in response to your claim that you make to anybody who argues with you, I won't quote again the sources that you already know about that refute your argument. Just because it doesn't appear in the section of the book you read (Tabari's original and the Arabic don't have such distinctions between sections) doesn't mean you are instantaneously right. It was about this point that I was banned last time, so I am interested to see what the next course of action is...whether things will continue, or I will "cut and run" as it was referred to by not being allowed to post a rebuttal before the discussion drifted away.

Just doing some thinking...and Rick is fine, but my name is Chris.
(By the way, in all honesty, I hope you found my apology about the banning in another posting today and will consider it. I don't mean to launch attacks on anybody that are not true.)

Posted by: Watcher at May 5, 2007 9:12 PM

I read Karen Armstrong about Holy War and even my libaral instructor, at the university, said she was not a scholar.

Her comments only proves that, YES, liberalism is a mental disorder
ie: Michael Savage.

Posted by: eaglecap at May 5, 2007 9:19 PM

A great opportunity was LOST by Coalition troops when Taleban was pushed out-by NOT INSISTING on
a fully democratic government MINUS SHARIA LAW!
Karzai,privileged,weak [corrupt] was happy to get
Afghanistan on a plate without bothering to change a thing...
One wonders why U.S went to all the trouble of pushing out Soviets when they at least advocated
equal rights & education for women??

Re : Robert's answer to ridiculous Ms Armstrong,having heard him debate & speak,would easily demolish such a lightweight pro- Islamic Poster gal.

Posted by: Morgane at May 5, 2007 9:25 PM

"Watcher" wrote:

"the "isnads" of these Bukhari verses have been and are being questioned, such was the subject of a book published out of al-Azhar (last year I think)"

He tries to slip by us the fact that he is claiming a general sentiment in the Muslim world predicated upon one book! And he repeatedly chides Spencer for claiming too much broad knowledge of the Muslim world based on too little evidence!

Posted by: remote_control at May 5, 2007 9:26 PM

P.S.
On BBC today. In a goodwill match in Norway 'Priests v Inams' Muslims refused to play
against women [due to their religion].Priest's captain walked off in protest...

Posted by: Morgane at May 5, 2007 9:31 PM

OT, but I saw recently that there is "Jihad Watch Deutschland." I can't read German, so anyone know if it's as good as this Jihad Watch USA?

Posted by: darcy at May 5, 2007 9:38 PM

Watcher:

Watch it; you're undermining your own arguments. In an earlier post, you wrote that:

"Aisha's older sister, Asma, was around 10 or so years older than Aisha, who died in 693 at the reported age of 100, although a lot of people argue that isn't right, we'll go with it as a good round number. In 622, that would make her like 29 and her sister like 19 at the time of marriage."

And in your most recent post, you wrote that:

"I know you don't believe this argument, especially when it comes to the verses you quote, but the "isnads" of these Bukhari verses have been and are being questioned, such was the subject of a book published out of al-Azhar (last year I think) about Tabari and Bukhari's fuzzy math and how since the subjects of calculated math weren't established until later, the vast majority of these dates in the sources should not be seen as correct."

If the math back then was fuzzy, wouldn't that make the reported age of aisha's older sister of 100 years EXTREMELY unreliable? It's a simple matter to count to 9. Just use your fingers. 100 is another level of difficulty altogether.

Just doin' some cipherin'.

P.S. If it's the truth you're after, perhaps you can start by changing your tagline to "Just doing some fabricating."

Posted by: sheik yer booty at May 5, 2007 9:45 PM

Nice job, Robert:

Expect an unhinged tirade of disparagement in counter-response.
That should prove rather amusingif not downright laughable.

Kudos!

Posted by: jcom972 at May 5, 2007 9:56 PM

Watcher:

What a happy coincidence that both you and the Wikipedia article on Aisha's age use the Dara'l-fikr edition of Tabari, published in Beirut in 1979! Now, I know Wikipedia is swell and all, but they do let a few errors creep in here and there -- and entries on particularly controversial subjects are beset by apologists and ideologues, some with scant regard for facts -- so why don't you post the exact relevant quotes? Since, lo and behold, you just happen to have that exact edition right at hand, and so far you haven't made a point that isn't made on Wikipedia. Post the quotes here. Arabic is fine. Go on -- post them right here, or send them to me at director@jihadwatch.org if you prefer.

The fact is that child marriage is rampant in the Islamic world in imitation of the Prophet. Your suggestion that only scholars know this arcana is specious. No one has to read Bukhari or Tabari or the others who testify to this to find this out -- all they have to do is learn about the Prophet's life in any Islamic school in an Islamic country.

Take, for example, what the Islamic scholar Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti said about Aisha and Muhammad: ”A'isha got married when she was 9, when the Prophet (SAAWS) died, she was 19....What is wrong in her marriage of six or nine or whatsoever?" This was published in Islam Online:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-06/15/article55.shtml

...and no one at Islam Online saw fit to note that of course everyone knows that she wasn't nine, and this al-Hanooti character is confused and misinformed (probably led astray by my black Zionist arts). Now why didn't they do that? Why did they let it pass? And where did al-Hanooti get the idea that she was nine in the first place? From me?

The fact that Aisha's age is debated is beyond dispute. But you are taking the fact that people dispute about it as an indication that Aisha was not nine when her marriage was consummated, and that no Muslim believes that she was -- that only wicked fellows like me dig this stuff up. Would that it were so, but it isn't.

What's more, you say, "Find me the statement that all Iranian men demand to marry women at nine (I quoted an Iranian government source saying that most Iranian women don't get married until their 20s, but you don't care unless it fits your argument.)" Speaking of reading comprehension, I noted that Khomeini lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine. Did I say he required marriages to nine-year-old girls, or demanded that men marry nine-year-olds? Of course not. You are just setting up a straw man to knock down, because that is easier to deal with than what I actually wrote.

Finally, you come around to it -- it's all my fault: "You are trying to connect what somebody said quite some time ago to something that is happening today, and you have no connection, other than the fact that something related to it was written 1000 years ago--which doesn't mean that everybody is using it today, or even discusses it beyond the realms of the Ulema." In so saying you sidestep entirely Muhammad's centrality as uswa hasana -- which makes what this man said and did 1400 years ago, as reported in the hadith collection Muslims consider most reliable (Bukhari), very important indeed.

You also resort in this to the familiar tactic of attributing to me what I report. No problem, old man -- I get this all the time. Zarqawi said that he cut off Nick Berg's head in imitation of Muhammad's beheadings after the Battle of Badr, but when I say that he said that, people routinely pretend that I am the one who made up the idea that Muhammad beheaded anyone. Same thing here: Muslims tolerate child marriage because of Muhammad, but when I note that, suddenly I'm the one who made up that Muhammad married a child. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, "Chris," but all too many Muslims see Muhammad as an excellent example to imitate, in this particular and in many others.

Meanwhile, while whining about personal attacks, you never quite got around to explaining why, if the period before the Hijra was not jahiliya, the Islamic calendar begins with the Hijra, or why Aisha had to be seven if Abu Bakr left her behind. In other words, you didn't deal with the substantive arguments I made, but instead pretended that I didn't make any. It's so much easier that way, isn't it?

Rick, Chris, sure -- I know who you are.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 5, 2007 9:57 PM

Watcher,

From Islam Q & A

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=22442&ln=eng

(a) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]

In this verse we see that Allaah has made the ‘iddah in the case of divorce of a girl who does not have periods – because she is young and has not yet reached puberty – three months. This clearly indicates that Allaah has made this a valid marriage.

(b) It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine and she stayed with him for nine years.

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4840; Muslim, 1422)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married ‘Aa’ishah when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine.”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim; Muslim says ‘seven years’)

The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. For that reason the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed the consummation of his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah. Al-Nawawi said: With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that one a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger. Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated).
Sharh Muslim, 9/206
It is preferable for a guardian not to marry off his daughter when she is still young unless there is a valid reason for that.
Al-Nawawi said:
It should be noted that al-Shaafa’i and his companions said: It is preferable for fathers and grandfathers not to marry off a virgin until she reaches the age of puberty and they ask her permission, lest she end up in a marriage that she dislikes. What they said does not go against the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, because what they meant is that they should not marry her off before she reaches puberty if there is no obvious interest to be served that they fear will be missed out on if they delay it, as in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah. In that case it is preferable to go ahead with the marriage because the father is enjoined to take care of his child’s interests and not to let a good opportunity slip away.
And Allaah knows best.
Sharh Muslim, 9/206.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 5, 2007 10:27 PM

Just be a little more creative and one can see the expanded possibilities for cross-cultural exchanges and tourism by gaining a deeper understanding Islamic law.

American, European, and Asian "convert" perverts could fly to Iran and exercise their virgin fantasies by using the 'marry-a-wife-for-a-day' whoring/rape exception (you know, the one the mullahs grant themselves and the religious police) and enjoy the Khomania special. Who needs to export oil when you can become the next Thailand of the sex trade, and do so legally and in the name of religious expression.

I just adore the rationalizations 'Look, Christians had the Crusades, Europe and America owned slaves, and George Washington had sex with an underage slave, so why fault Islam if it praises the same things?' as if there is no difference than past and today. The problem is that the violence in the coran is held up as a good example - and that actual death follows. Oh pity the chldren.

and fight for them also.
Thank you Robert.

Posted by: Sashland at May 5, 2007 10:34 PM

Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won't repeat them to you as they are available on the site. You also have said nothing that isn't on Wikipedia, so why does that make you right, and me wrong?

Uh oh, 1979! Dangerous! People have old books! Scary! Let's write exclamation points and "boogy boogy" scare quotes return! Spencer can read a citation! Goodness! Was there more than one set surviving?!? Are there books available in places like Cairo or Beirut that are old!?! They don't make new printings of old editions!?! Run away!

As for jahiliya (this is getting really reflective of your knowledge on Islamic history):

Jahiliya is the period before Islam. Hijra is the migration of MUSLIMS fleeing oppression in Mecca to Medina, beginning the Islamic calendar. Because there were Muslims during the Hijra, then obviously the discussed ending of Jahiliya had occured before the Hijra. Otherwise, how could Muslims have migrated when there was no knowledge of Islam (that lack of knowledge is called Jahiliya).

Also, I don't know if you know this (however it is talked about like every day) but the command "Iqara," and the subsequent three time repetition story is constantly referred to as the beginning of Islam and the end of the Jahiliya. Just because the calendar starts doesn't mean that the religion starts at exactly the same time. I am surprised at you, Robert, this is something you should know a lot more about.

By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age. He looks pretty angry, too, but that doesn't mean he wanted to kill everybody. You still didn't answer the claim, and (let's follow your logic) I won't answer your claims in detail unless you answer mine. If that is the case, and "all too many Muslims" follow this example, why has the marrying age for women and men continued to increase since the revolution? Let's move to somewhere else, like Eygpt. Why, in a country where ~85% are Muslims is the minimum marriage age 16, and most marriages actually happen much later despite the law, like into the 20s?

Uswa hasana---in what context? Hasana for bukra? Hasana for imbara7? Hasana for salawat? Tova ba-kol? Let's assume for the moment that you're 100% right--Mohammed married a six year old, fag3aha wa nus. What about the argument that certain rules don't apply to everybody else and only worked for Mohammed (like the special covering for his wives, that some Muslims have inappropriately taken on themselves). This is a separate issue, but let's delve a bit, I'm feeling adventurous. ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoum, a book that you quote sometimes, says that Mohammed had rights as a prophet that people do not, such as in number of wives, types of marriage, etc. This was not the first book to discuss it, and there are many others that make the same argument. If you are right, the next logical step might be dangerous, but we can keep that for a later date.

Just doing some thinking...
(Still didn't answer that "find me..." paragraph, huh? Zarqawi, great. You found a murderer who was fleeing authorities in Jordan (because his Islamic tutors turned him in for being violent, but you won't respond to that) assassinated a reporter and said something to make him sound different than an idiot. Find me the multitude of Muslims who agreed with his justification. Do you remember the protests against Zarqawi in Pakistan (no, you don't) that said he wasn't Muslim, etc? What about the ones in Cairo, and the religious statements from Azhar stating that his actions constituted nothing more than depraved murder? Some English poetry major had "Ax Ishmael" written on his arm right before he killed a bunch of people. So now he's a follower of a particular English poem, or maybe an admirer of Moby Dick [my English teacher told me he is uswa hasana (a good example) of how far revenge can go], or is he still just a murderer?)
(I did deal with your substansive arguments, but you don't respond to them and say later that I didn't say anything about them. Also, glad to hear that everybody's cheering you on...I feel so bad [why would I expect anything else on this site])

Some Muslims are wrong and have evil intentions. You agree with their interpretations and promote an equal response to them. Transitive property applies.

Posted by: An American at May 5, 2007 11:17 PM

Watcher says:

"I am sorry that we do not share the same editions. Mine are the same as used in Wikipedia article..."

How convenient that Watcher is working from the same "editions" as used in Wikipedia! He will easily meet Robert's challenge to supply the relevant quotations then. Of course this might entail another trip to the local mosque first....

And he's probably working overtime again tonight, so those of us who have no life outside of jihadwatch will need to be patient while he gets around to it.

Surely it will be worth the wait.

Posted by: alexon at May 5, 2007 11:19 PM

"Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won't repeat them to you as they are available on the site."

My Goodness, "An American" is back! He must be roommates with "Watcher" or something.

Anyway, looks like he/they don't have the goods after all. How surprising!

Posted by: alexon at May 5, 2007 11:29 PM

Robert,

Nice work in calling Watcher on his bluffs.

Wathcer,

Time to show us your cards. You say:

"there are a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date."

and

"I am sorry that we do not share the same editions. Mine are the same as used in Wikipedia article, although I found that the references were the same later on during the day. It was published in Beirut, and the edition was printed in Arabic, not English."

Lol! First you claim there are "50 verses" in Tabari about the marriage, Aisha's age, etc., then you provide zero discussions of the consumation date in question. Then you turn up only a couple of citations which only give vague and indirect information from which you (and others who advance this line) engage in a kind of interpretive speculation.

Now you are implying that you know Arabic well enough to read the Arabic Tabari? I guess anything is possible, but not everything is probable or plausible. I simply do not find your story credible.

You expect us to believe that you actually went to the trouble of looking up Tabari, and then you came back to teach us all a lesson, and all you have to show for it is what you presented above?!

Meanwhile you tell us your responses are brief because you are working? You're telling us that you are working while running around looking up Tabari in Arabic, going to a mosque for advice, and responding with all those long posts on this site?! Again, unless you work in a library next to a mosque and have the Arabic Tabari there, and your bosses let you spend all this time on the net, that's just really improbable.

You state:

"(Tabari's original and the Arabic don't have such distinctions between sections) doesn't mean you are instantaneously right. It was about this point that I was banned last time, so I am interested to see what the next course of action is...whether things will continue, or I will "cut and run" as it was referred to by not being allowed to post a rebuttal before the discussion drifted away."

I also sense that you are now looking to cut and run, now that your bluff has been called.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 5, 2007 11:39 PM

Watcher--sorry for misspelling your name.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 5, 2007 11:40 PM

Interesting discussion on Aisha. It is represented that the texts say she was either 9, or 10, or at least 12, or maybe 15 or 16, or maybe like 19. For a civilization that ‘invented’ math, the Islamic framers sure had trouble counting. My money’s on Robert’s direct readings from the text over convoluted logic reconstruction of the counting-challenged.

And the arm read ‘Ismail Ax’, not Ax Ishmael. Funny how that manifesto has been kept classified.

Posted by: pez at May 6, 2007 12:03 AM

An islamic article about the young age of Aisha
http://www.muslim-answers.org/aishah.htm

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 6, 2007 12:04 AM

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

Re language, I don't have that much of a problem with "raid" in that case, though certainly "warfare" doesn't fit the context of 2:217 (Nakhla attacks).

The same issues need to be raised when people like Armstrong use terms and phrases like "defensive," "aggression," "behave ethically," "oppression," etc. (Those were from her FT review of Robert's book). Each time we have to expose how Islamic conceptions differ from our western conceptions of these terms.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 6, 2007 12:21 AM

From the above link:

Now in regards to what the authentic Islamic sources actually say, it may come as a disappointment to some "modern" and "cultured" Muslims that there are four ahadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari and three ahadith in Saheeh Muslim which clearly state that 'Aishah was "nine years old" at the time that her marriage was consummated with the Prophet.

I take back what I said about counting skills and apologize about questioning the Framer’s math.

Posted by: pez at May 6, 2007 12:24 AM

Robert, Perhaps the FT omitted your starting paragraph dealing with Aisha's age because they didn't want to hear from readers such as Watcher/An American. It's too bad your logical, accurate rebuttals are being answered with obfuscation and smarmy double-talk, but I still enjoy seeing you rip his arguments to shreds.

Posted by: Xero G at May 6, 2007 12:52 AM

Much ado is made here by some (one?) that "proofs" are required to substantiate the argument that Islam itself sanctions or causes marriage to prepubescent girls, condones murder and terrorism, etc. The proof comes in a general form that to any reasonable mind adds up to an ample indictment of Islam as a religion that has delivered far more by way of oppression and merciless control and death than it has peace or spiritual awakening. For me, these two points make case-by-case documentation unnecessary and redundant:

1. The absence of even the slightest visible trace of objection or protestation from Mulsims in Muslim areas regarding terrorism or the abuse of women and children or religious intolerance (ad nauseam). There is no one to fight the good fight in their system that instills constant fear.

2. The fact that in Islamic life all aspects are devoid of separation from each other: politics, religion, secular matters, wind surfing-- all are considered holistically as one within the "religious practice" of Islam. Any known (public) behavior that is not punished by extisting laws can therefore be considered to be accepted among Muslims as an acceptable part of Islam.

Regional, cultural and ethnic variances account for the uneven "tapestry of Islam" but the operative word is "Islam". No force that may compell the sale or trade of children, etc., falls outside of Islam as long as the participants are faithful Muslims.

Peopl