Ortega?

Spengler, Shmengler.

But Ortega. Now you're talking. The Dehumanization of Art. The Revolt of the Masses. Bring back Ortega -- where is he in the curriculum today? He's in nowheresville. Put him right back in, front and center, in all those "world-class" universities and the others whose Development Offices don't yet dare to identify their employer as a "world-class" university (whatever that idiotic description means). Put him in, make him required reading, with Jacques Barzun, and Wladimir Weidle, and Richard Weaver.

Let's get this goddamn educational show on the road, shall we? We've tried stupidity and ignorance and the levelling and the worship of equal-opportunity mediocrity.

It just hasn't been working out.

Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2007 10:17 AM

Robert --

I forgot to mention Ortega's "Meditaciones del Quijote" from 1914. Ortega. Borges. Menard. The piece I owe you? But let's not talk about it in public, okay? Just give me a moment.

Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2007 10:24 AM

Because Mr. Spencer is taking on the one religion that has followers that follow the koran to the letter, will always be accused of misrepresenting it. Their efforts are to 'confuse and then abuse' non-muslims.

All one has to do is sit back and watch the followers of the koran if one is to learn about islam. Then when you listen to the muslims anyone will notice that something isn't quit right. Their words don't match their actions of their followers. The countries under sharia law don't match all the 'peaceful' assertions that they spew while they are minorities in a country.

Posted by: R_not at May 14, 2007 10:34 AM

In response to Ms. Armstrong, who you quote above, may I add something that I wrote to Dinesh D'Souza this morning? On Townhall.com, he argued that radical Muslims are reformers because they advocate a return to the Koran. I responded as follows?

When American Christians think of reform, they usually think of the kind of reform motivated by enlightenment. There is a good reason for this. If you look at the Jewish scriptures, you will find that most of them, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and many others are written for the purpose of criticizing views held in earlier scriptures. So, Jeremiah preaches that Israelites should refrain from idolatry of the City of Jerusalem and recognize that they can practice their religion in exile. As Mr. D'Souza knows well, when Americans are asking for reform in Islam it is this kind of reform that they have in mind. It is reform based on critical dialogue. However, Islam seems to recognize this kind of reform not at all. Why? Because the Koran has to be perfect. In fact, it is so perfect that it corrects the errors in Jewish scripture, such as errors in Jeremiah and others. That is, this claim to perfection removes the very strong element of reform found in the prophets. Sheesh, talk about not wanting to talk to strangers.

Another kind of reform can be associated with Martin Luther. His reforms were directed at the practices of the priesthood and at the texts used by the priesthood. As regards the latter, he preached for a return to older texts as authoritative. This might seem to be a reform in the strict radical Muslim sense, except for the fact that he treats the prophets as sacred, thus embracing the tradition of reform that lives in them.

Martin Luther did embrace the priesthood of the individual, which can be seen as a reform based on enlightenment.

Mr. D'Souza, what American Christians really want from Muslims, of all stripes, is for them to engage in interfaith dialogue. You and they fervently refuse to do so. You begin any discussion with the trump card that the Koran is perfect. So what is the point of dialogue?

By the way, Sharia Law is not found in the Koran but in later scholarship. You would think that the fundamentalists would reject it for that reason.

Posted by: ProfJim at May 14, 2007 11:10 AM

Spengler makes the statement that "A religion is not a text but a life". But what kind of life depends on the religion. The differences in practice of an Orthodox Jew and a Reform Jew can be seen as going directly to how the texts are interpreted.

He then goes on to compare both the benign and malignant actions done by Muslims: "My conclusion was that Muslims sacrifice themselves, in a benign way through pilgrimage to Mecca, but also in a malignant way through jihad." It is hard to read this paragraph and not wonder why he is so critcal of Robert Spencer's attempts to show the textual sources that justify the actions of some Muslims.

Posted by: Jerry M at May 14, 2007 11:12 AM

It is all so pointless and sophomoric; anyone can quote the Koran, or for that matter the Bible, to show whatever one wants.

And now to prove the sophomoric writers point, I will quote the Bible to prove the moon is really made of green cheese, but don’t hold your breath, it may take a while.

Posted by: Bar at May 14, 2007 11:17 AM

My favorite professor in college turned me on to Ortega. Despairing of an "explanation" of what phenomenology is, the professor once read a passage from Ortega to show what phenomenology is.

Meditations on Quixote is some of the most gorgeous, limpid philosophical writing in all of history -- in English translation the beauty comes through. He wrote it when he was -- what? -- 21 years old? Ortega said clarity is the courtesy the philosopher owes. His writing, as I believe he himself noted, was so reader-friendly that many often missed his meaning, because the colorful shimmering surface of his poetic yet rigorous philosophical prose and the simplicity of his short sentences (short for a great philosopher) could lead one not to bother to try to understand the difficult thought they contained.

Ortega used now and then to claim that he had put forth Heidegger's essential ideas before Heidegger did. If so, Ortega did so infinitely more clearly than did Heidegger. Part of what the two have in common is that they both go beyond the split between subject and object that had one of its most prominent authors in Descartes, a split that developed and deepened in European popular and philosophical consciousness down to around 1900. The philosophical "establishment" in Germany in the latter half of the 1800s believed it self-evident that one could only ever know states of oneself, and claimed there was a world of purely objective "things-in-themselves" which, however, we could never experience, and which were alleged to be inherently beyond experience. Then you get people like Brentano and Ortega and Steiner and Heidegger and no doubt others, breaking through the split. Interestingly, it was around the same time that Newtonian physics, with its belief in the possibility in principle of segregating subject and object, gives way to the new physics, where the observer unavoidably affects the observed.

Not all of Ortega's books contain equally gorgeous philosophical prose, but at his best he was astounding.

Posted by: traeh at May 14, 2007 11:19 AM

"...it is less important to know what really happened in Muhammad’s life than what Muslims have generally accepted as having happened, for the latter still forms the foundation of Muslim belief, practice, and law."

If someone believes something, it's the truth to them. So analyzing the hitorical record outside the Koran and Sunnah won't amount to much. It needs to be addressed in an academic work, as Spencer and Ibn Warraq and others have in fact done. In terms of explaining real world behavior, however, it means next to nothing.

I haven't read much of Armstrong of "Spengler", but they might want to consider looking at what is actually happening - what jihadists are doing and saying - as part of their approach to writing on the subject.

Actually reading Spencer before criticizing him would be a good idea too.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at May 14, 2007 11:28 AM

I think "Spengler's" understanding of Spencer comes from Reading Armstrong's review of his book, and maybe reading the one article (now 2) Spencer has written in which he is named. Oh, and he probably committed the typical newbie mistake of browsing all the reader comments and attributing everything said to Spencer.

I think you've adequately answered this lightweight, Robert. I find it disconcerting that many of those who regard themselves as against the Jihad spend much of their time tearing down those who really are doing something about it -- apparently the antijihadist industry has grown to the point that internal competition for the spotlight looms more important for those who regard themselves as up-and-comers than the actual goal of stopping worldwide jihad.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 14, 2007 11:45 AM

Who is Spencer's Adversary?

Spengler writes:

"...Spencer has missed his adversary's mortal weakness: by insisting that the Koran is clear, consistent and unambiguous in preaching violence..."

I think Spencer's adversary is not Mr. Jihadi or Ms. Armstrong, but rather PC America and the MSM which has its head up its ass and is deluded by apologists such as CAIR into assuming that Islam, like Christianity is "clear, consistent and unambiguous" in preaching AGAINST violence.

Spencer's Adversary is mass Ignorance. His pedagogical task is only just beginning. Spengler is blowhard.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 14, 2007 12:11 PM

Heard of this Pseudonymous Pundit year ago from a radio host so went to the Asia Times to read him and concluded he was a fool

And especially, not at all prescient or correct

Also an equivalentist fool.

Never looked at him again, nor will give him currency here.

Posted by: dgene at May 14, 2007 12:18 PM

Spengler gave the impression of being simplistic in his judgments about "coherence" and "incoherence." He seems to think something either is perfectly coherent, or it is incoherent; it doesn't seem ever to have occurred to him that things in the real world evince only degrees of order and disorder. Thus he finds incoherence in the Quran, and leaps from that to the notion that the Quran is a blank slate, a Rorschach inkblot, complete incoherence, and that it therefore cannot have any significant causal power in itself to form or hold Muslim loyalty and belief to Islam. So Spengler says Robert Spencer is wasting time as an expert in the texts of Islam (though Spencer also is an expert in Islamic history and practice).

Of course the texts of Islam are not the only thing that explains the fierceness and form of Muslim belief. But Robert Spencer has never proposed such a simplistic explanation. Meanwhile, Spengler seems to leap from the fact that texts are not everything, to the notion that the texts are quite negligible in determining Muslim faith. He seems to go to the extremes of some deconstructionists, who often talk as if texts are in themselves utterly without form, and void, mere lumps of clay on which the reader can impose any whim with equal justice. Thus Robert Spencer is merely drawing lines in mud, while claiming those lines were already there in the mud, while Armstrong is drawing other lines and claiming those were already there, and neither of the two are correct, says Spengler. The mud is formless in itself. The texts are empty. In that, Spengler tells us, he agrees more with Armstrong, because, Spengler claims, she recognizes the "multifariousness" of the texts, while Robert Spencer supposedly does not recognize that multifariousness and is under a delusion that the texts are perfectly coherent. Thus Spengler grossly caricatures Robert Spencer's work.

And Spengler's solution is that he wants to get "inside" the psyches and "existence" of Muslims through poetry and existential philosophy/theology, and thinks that is the only worthwhile approach, or at any rate that Robert Spencer's work is irrelevant. While I do think there is a place for a "literary" or "poetic" approach to the challenges coming from Islam, that doesn't mean R.Spencer's work is unnecessary. That Spengler suggests that, shows he does not know Spencer's careful work of decades or Spencer's amazingly pellucid penetration, without simplification, of such a large and complex subject. Spengler's dismissal of all that probably must be put down to a philosophical fixity of some sort or sorts lodged somewhere in Spengler's unripe mind. It is often the case that philosophy can create, in the insufficiently lively mind, deadening rigidities and one-sided prejudices. Philosophy is in some respects a way of slowing down the mind, a form of mental retardation, and many bog down there in some static idea or other, some "ism" or other, and fail to realize that any "ism" is just a language approximately suited to expressing some particular domain in the world. No "ism," no idea, is fully adequate even to a part of the world, much less to the whole world.

Two of the biggest hazards thinkers face are 1) being too black and white and 2) being too grey and wishy washy. #1 means excessively favoring differences of kind, and #2 means excessively favoring differences of degree. From what I've seen of Spengler, he has problem #1, at least when it comes to his either-or attitude toward the kind of work Robert Spencer does vs. the kind of literary/poetic/theological/existential work Spengler thinks is all that is necessary.

Coleridge asked whether the difference between differences of degree and differences of kind was itself a difference of degree or a difference of kind. He concluded it was a difference of degree. Contained in that is a solution of the one/many problem, that effaces neither aspect.

Posted by: traeh at May 14, 2007 12:42 PM

There is really only one issue that matters here and that is the reality that the Kuran teaches Muslims to commit first degree murder against the 'unbelievers'-- and as a result of this teaching those who are non-Muslim ('unbelievers') must protect themselves from Islam one way or another. Whether or not the Kuran teaches anything else is secondary; these 'other' teachings of Islam's will not get millions of innocent persons murdered in cold blood the way this Islamic teaching has-- and that is why Islamic critics like us "cherry pick" Islamic teachings, some are deadly while some aren't (we concern ourselves here with the ones that are getting innocent people murdered). Someone please pass this along to Ms. Armstrong if possible.

No one has ever managed to come up with a non-violent form of Islam in 13 centuries. Even if one notes that the Kuran teaches things other than violent expression of obedience to al-lah, the inherent violence in Islamic doctrine remains: it seems to be quite impossible to remove violence from Islam in practice.

Virtually every Islamified country is a totalitarian nightmare of brutality, bigotry, corruption and social and economic decay. How does one explain away the fact that in the twentieth century alone, Muslims in the Islamified regions of the globe slaughtered over 50 million Christians? How does one explain away the historic (and very bloody) destruction of Hindustan and Asia Minor by Muslims? Or the 900 years of bloodhsed in the Balkans at the hands of Muslim jihadist ivaders?

Virtually all non-Islamic nations that have the misfortune of being next door to one are plagued with endless mayhem. This is a direct result of Islamic teachings; the non-Muslims are targeted for violence by Muslims seemingly everywhere (just as the Kuran teaches).

Either the receiver is open to this message that Islam teaches murder against the unbelievers or one is not. One can reject this message and claim that the messenger is really the message as Spengler has. If only Muslims would reject this teaching too!

Aparently Mr. Spengler is not open to receiving this message. That's his problem. All the fancy verbage on earth won't save him when the jihadists show up at his door (unless maybe he really is one behind the nom de plume).

Posted by: pythagoras at May 14, 2007 1:19 PM

Traeh,

Your post reminded me to comment on Spengler's use of the word "Multifarious".

Using words like "Multifarious" is a good example of why people - especially (wannabe) intellectuals - have such a hard time understanding literalist, absolutist thinkers like jihadists.

Multifarious is a cop out. Does that mean Islam is too complicated to understand? Or does it have so many contradictory elements that it really means nothing, or anything you want?...

Islam means what it means to literlists, so it's best to come to terms with that and start dealing with it. While the likes of Spengler are spinning multifariousness, jihadists are busy acting on what they believe.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at May 14, 2007 1:53 PM

Sorry, can't let a false statement pass unchallenged.

from above: "If you look at the Jewish scriptures, you will find that most of them, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and many others are written for the purpose of criticizing views held in earlier scriptures. So, Jeremiah preaches that Israelites should refrain from idolatry of the City of Jerusalem and recognize that they can practice their religion in exile."

Ah, where to begin? The Jewish prophets do not criticize views held in earlier scriptures. That is exactly the type of world-view that leads eventually to the Muslim claim that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are a deception. Rather, the Jewish prophets criticize the Jewish people for infidelity to their (our) Covenant. There is nothing in the Prophets that is inconsistent with the Torah.

The Israelites at no time engaged in idolatry of the city of Jerusalem. The claim to the contrary is absurd and without support.

Jeremiah lamented over the ruined city. That we can practice our religion in exile was rather the contribution of the Talmudic sages or Pharisees, whose humane teachings liberated the people from the Temple-centered literalism of the Sadducees.

Posted by: Surak at May 14, 2007 2:47 PM

"Spengler" proves that sloth (intellectual laziness) is still a sin.

I suggest he change his by-line monicker to "Half-Cocked".

Since he tends to go off this way.

Mr. Spencer-

Having demonstrated his crass disinterest in accuracy sufficiently, ignore him from this point on.

Until he does his homework, and apologizes for being a pompous aspirant, he's just like a kid pretending he read the assignment, but then keeps on insisting that "Huckleberry Finn" is about a shark with a penchant for fruit.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 14, 2007 2:56 PM

Jihad? Do the Math!

All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the references to jihad are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: “all of the above.” Both sides of the duality are right.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5794&sec_id=5794

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 14, 2007 3:13 PM

I see Ortega taco shells in the supermaket. But I wouldn't know Ortega from a blown gasket, if Hugh likes him, he's OK in my book.

Posted by: dennisw at May 14, 2007 3:40 PM

Some brief points:
Armstrong writes: "He picks out only those aspects...that support his thesis ... and does not mention the numerous verses that insist on the continuity of Islam."

1) First, Robert Spencer does, in fact, mention the verses which are "peaceful", thus Armstrong is either ignorant or a liar. (she should also look to her own cherry-picking of verses.)
2) Secondly, simply because you quantify (x number of verses are "peaceful", y number are "violent" -- illustrates precisely NOTHING) does not illuminate the *quality* of the verses. Hence, numbers may signify nothing. The weight of a given verse could be more important than quantity (one can also consider the "abrogation" of verses, etc.)
3) Thirdly, the individuals who emphasize the "continuity" of islam are the followers and apologists of islam. In order to adopt the "continuity" argument, one must also accept that the previous religions (that's Judaism and Christianity) have been superseded by Islam or (to put this in another way) the religions of Judaism and Christianity were originally "islamic" but got altered (or picked up "errors") which the prophet then "corrected." Obviously, Christians and Jews cannot and do not accept the supercessionist arguments of islam.

Next, "Spengler":
1) "Spengler" has yet to explain WHY it is so important to assert that "the prophet" never existed. Or that for some unexplained reason that the followers of the religion of Islam are "o so particular" with respect to factual evidence. Islam is a religion in which the "believers" contend (among other things) that the Prophet in a "night journey" rode on a "buraq" and the prophet's footprint is left on a stone. This is a rather fantatic, if not ludicrous, tale, but has the non-factuality of such tales at all hampered or hindered the proclamations of the believers? Of course not.
2) "Spengler" asserts that "Islam bashing, justified or not, is a waste of time." So, "Spengler" you're not "Islam bashing?" when you question the existence of said g-d's critter, namely, the prophet?
3) Note, there are any number of myths which people maintain. some myths may be benign, others are less so. If someone wishes to believe in a pacifistic, peaceable "prophet" (and adopts a "live and let live" attitude toward other religions and beliefs) I really don't give a d***. Ok? That's a harmless myth. Other myths, however, can be far less benign. One myth is about the nature of jihad. And, "no", it's not about "peace and love." As the author of Islamic Imperialism writes: "Bin Laden's proclamation of jihad was no novelty in and of itself: declaring a holy war against the infidel has been a standard practice of countless imperial rulers and aspirants since the rise of Islam." And to tell us otherwise or to pretend otherwise, is to adopt a toxic myth which will lead to the disarming of Infidels and our eventual take over by the adherents of Jihad (which, btw, Robert Spencer is warning us about -- in the event "Spengler" hasn't noticed).

Posted by: J.S. at May 14, 2007 4:12 PM

Robert,
having felt grossly misunderstood for most of my life, i offer you my empathy.

Posted by: M Al-Content at May 14, 2007 4:54 PM

I think the key point here is not what is historically accurate about Muhammad and Islam but what Muslim thinkers have decided is historically accurate about Muhammad and Islam. If you believer Crone, Wansborough and the other researchers who have been trying to apply the same critical methods that have been applied to the Bible and the Torah to Islam, every thing about Muhammad and Islam is subject to doubt. If this is the case, Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula very early on made very deliberate choices and shaped the Qur’an, Muhammad and his biography –the Sira and what he and his Companions said and did—the Hadiths, in a very particular way. This might as well be a Rorschach Test of the early founders of Islam and it is not a pretty sight.

That being said, whether or not Muhammad or Islam is as they are believed to be is largely a question for scholars. We, today, have to deal with the actions of Muslims who are acting on the basis of what they have been taught about Muhammad and the commands of the Qur’an and the worldview, life and actions that these produce.

Posted by: GaryK at May 14, 2007 4:58 PM

If anyone is silly enough to believe that the religion of Islam is concerned about "facts" or "verisimilitude" -- well, dream on, or better yet, go to the other side of this website to DhimmiWatch and read Hugh's article on "Deception, deception, deception."

Posted by: J.S. at May 14, 2007 5:19 PM

Raymond Ibrahim debunks Karen Armstrong

Islamic Apologetics

Karen Armstrong tells us to ignore history and doctrine, focus on platitudes about peace and love.

By Raymond Ibrahim

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTFiZTk3ZWE4OWI5OGUwOGMxYWEwNzA0MTcyODg4ZTY=&w=MA==

Posted by: DP111 at May 14, 2007 5:27 PM

@P:J.S.

You wrote that: "...simply because you quantify (x number of verses are "peaceful", y number are "violent" -- illustrates precisely NOTHING..."

Oh really?

You must have a brilliant new way of looking at things! Me, I'm a simple guy. If 97% of the usage of Jihad refers to war and 3% refers to inner struggle then I know that when a muhammadan refers to Jihad, 97 to 1, he's thinking war and violence.

Then you pontificate that:
3) Note, there are any number of myths which people maintain.

J.S., in Islam the myths are hardwired into the texts. They are no longer myths, they are part of the islamic canon.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 14, 2007 6:02 PM

"I see Ortega taco shells in the supermaket. But I wouldn't know Ortega from a blown gasket, if Hugh likes him, he's OK in my book."
-- from a poster above

This should give me street cred for my Product Placement abilities and influence, even though I had nothing of the sort in mind, was not angling for Nestle to send me a chocolate bar or possibly a can of cocoa powder. No, I was innnocently writing only about Ortega, as in Ortega y Gasset.

If, however, you discover me mentioning Don Miguel y Gasset or, in a still more shameless act of Product Placement, gushing over how much wisdom I have derived from the feuilletons of a philosopher whom I refer to as Old El Paso y Gasset, then you'll know that I'm up to some underhanded stuff, just like marketing departments everywhere.

Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2007 6:03 PM

After Hugh's thorough obliteration of the foundation of Spengler's "argument" provided below, is anyone actually listening to this clown?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016354.php

Posted by: awake at May 14, 2007 7:37 PM

Interesting that Spengler chose that moniker, since the more famous Oswald who died seventy or eighty years ago is known for a couple of main ideas today: 1) his cultural relativism and 2) a rigid cultural periodicity he claimed led all cultures in predictable stages from birth to inevitable decline. Hence his pessimistic The Decline of the West. Not sure what there is in such ideas to make our latter-day Spengler want to raise aloft Oswald's standard.

Jose Ortega y Gasset's historical thinking (e.g., History As A System) was both far more supple and far more penetrating.

Posted by: traeh at May 14, 2007 7:44 PM

Spengler stubbornly refuses to read Robert's claims.

Spengler also doesn't seem to want to read the Koran thoroughly to reach an informed judgement.

About the "sound bite" quoted by Karen Armstrong, here is a closer look with a bit more context (warning to Spengler: The following may contain quotation from the Koran):

29:46. "And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.
29:47. In like manner We have revealed unto thee the Scripture, and those unto whom We gave the Scripture aforetime will believe therein; and of these (also) there are some who believe therein. And none deny Our revelations save the disbelievers.
29:48. And thou (O Muhammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor didst thou write it with thy right hand, for then might those have doubted, who follow falsehood.
29:49. But it is clear revelations in the hearts of those who have been given knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save wrong-doers."

A few points about 29:46:

-The allegedly tolerant verse excludes polytheists and other religious people who do not fit under the category of People of the Book. It is thus curious why people like Armstrong try to pass this verse off as religiously tolerant.

-People of the Book must accept Muhammad’s revelations (Koran); they must accept Allah and the Messenger, as is clear in many verses (e.g., 49:15, 48:13, 6:33, 24:62, etc.).

-People of the Book must accept Muhammad's strange ideas about "true" (Islamic conceptions of) Christianity and Judaism (e.g., 2:135-140; 3:67). The very next verse (29:47) calls those who reject "Our revelations" disbelievers. Jews and Christians are called disbelievers in multiple places [9:30-32, see 9:32, alkafiroona; 5:11-17 see 5:17 kafara; 5:72-73 kafara, kafaroo; 98:6 “kafaroo” (disbelievers) are “worst of created beings”; 9:29 and fight (q-t-l) those who believe not in Allah, the Last Day, Mohammad, and Islam]. In other words, if you don't accept Islam, you're a disbeliever, as there is no other acceptable religion (3:85) after Muhammad's revelations. (That latter distinction must also be kept in mind when reading verses like the oft-quoted 2:62).

-The passage goes on to threaten the doomsday punishment 29:55, and the earlier part describes Allah’s earthly destruction of the sinners/disbelievers 29:40.

-Note the phrase "save* with such of them as do wrong." *(i.e., except). One must take into account this exception. Who are those who do wrong? The Koran is clear in many verses that those who reject Allah's revelations are those who do wrong. According to the Koran, there is no worse "wrong" than disbelieving in Allah's revelation. Verse 9:29 clarifies that those People of the Book who do not accept Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad) must be fought.

Other points of distinction in the Koran:

7:177 -those who reject "Our revelations" (includes Quran of course) are evil.

3:85, 3:19. -only Islam is acceptable to Allah.

3:113-116. -those among the People of the Book who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day will go to hell.

28:62-64 and 40:73 -Allah will mock Christians when they burn in Hell, asking them where their partners (e.g., a divine Jesus) are.

30:12-16 "Christians" on the Last Day who do not believe in Islam will go to hell.

Here is what some mainstream Muslim tafsirs say about 29:46:

al-Jalalayn
"And do not dispute with the People of the Scripture unless it be with that - in that manner of disputation, bettering the most virtuous way, such as calling [them] to God by [reference to] His signs and pointing out His arguments; except [in the case of] those of them who have done wrong, by waging war and refusing to accept [to pay] the jizya-tax: dispute with these using the sword, until such time as they submit or pay the jizya-tax; and say, to those who have accepted [the imposition upon them of] the jizya-tax, should they inform you of something stated in their Scriptures: 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you - and neither believe nor disbelieve them in that [which they tell you] - our God and your God is one [and the same], and to Him we submit', [to Him] we are obedient."

Ibn Abbas
"(And argue not with the People of the Scripture) the Jews and Christians (unless it be in (a way) that is better) i.e. by the Qur'an, (save with such of them as do wrong) from among the delegation of Najran, then you can do so by means of Mula'anah; (and say: We believe in that which has been revealed unto us) i.e. the Qur'an (and revealed unto you) the Torah and the Gospel; (our God and your God is One) He has no son or partner, (and unto Him we surrender) we are sincere to Him in our worship and profession of Allah's divine Oneness, and we believe in Him."

Ibn Kathir (online, abridged)

"Arguing with the People of the Book

What is meant here is that anyone who wants to find out about religion from them should argue with them in a manner that is better, as this will be more effective. Allah says:

(Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching...) (16:125) And Allah said to Musa and Harun when he sent them to Fir`awn:

(And speak to him mildly, perhaps he may accept admonition or fear.) (20:44) Allah says here:

(except with such of them as do wrong;) meaning, those who turn away from the truth, turning a blind eye to clear evidence, being stubborn and arrogant. In this case you should progress from debate to combat, fighting them in such a way as to deter them from committing aggression against you. Allah says:

(Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance that mankind may keep up justice. And We brought forth iron wherein is mighty power) until:

(Verily, Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty) (57:25). Jabir said: "We were commanded to strike with the sword whoever opposes the Book of Allah.'' And His saying:

(and say (to them): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you;) means, `if they tell you something which you do not know to be true or false, say to them: We do not hasten to say it is a lie, because it may be true, and we do not hasten to say it is true because it may be false. We believe in it in general, under the condition that it has been revealed and has not been altered or deliberately misinterpreted.' Imam Al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, recorded that Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, said, "The People of the Book used to read the Tawrah in Hebrew and explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. [...]"
http://www.mquran.org/index.php/content/view/8218/2/

From the Hadith:

Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
During the lifetime of the Prophet some people said, : O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet said, "Yes; do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun at midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon on a full moon night when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." The Prophet said, "(Similarly) you will have no difficulty in seeing Allah on the Day of Resurrection as you have no difficulty in seeing either of them. On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, "Let every nation follow that which they used to worship." Then none of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e. good) and those who were disobedient (i.e. bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son. What do you want now?' They will say, 'O our Lord! We are thirsty, so give us something to drink.' They will be directed and addressed thus, 'Will you drink,' whereupon they will be gathered unto Hell (Fire) which will look like a mirage whose different sides will be destroying each other. Then they will fall into the Fire. Afterwards the Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son,' Then it will be said to them, 'What do you want?' They will say what the former people have said. Then, when there remain (in the gathering) none but those who used to worship Allah (Alone, the real Lord of the Worlds) whether they were obedient or disobedient. Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, 'What are you waiting for?' Every nation have followed what they used to worship.' They will reply, 'We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.' Allah will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say twice or thrice, 'We do not worship any besides Allah.' "

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 438:
Narrated Anas: A young Jewish boy used to serve the Prophet and he became sick. So the Prophet went to visit him. He sat near his head and asked him to embrace Islam. The boy looked at his father, who was sitting there; the latter told him to obey Abu-l-Qasim and the boy embraced Islam. The Prophet came out saying: "Praises be to Allah Who saved the boy from the Hell-fire."

Also the Reliance of the Traveller cites a sahih hadith:

"The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell."" (RT, w4.3).

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 14, 2007 9:11 PM

Spengler also raises the "white raisins" idea, suggested by "Christoph Luxenberg" in his linguistic re-analysis of some parts of the Quran.

For those who are interested, here is a brief introduction to Luxenberg's proposal:
http://www.answers.com/topic/christoph-luxenberg

Here is an extensive review if Luxenberg's method and claims:
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES
(Virgins or white raisins in the Quran? “Christoph Luxenberg’s” hypothesis reviewed).

I didn't put much stock in this idea before, and still think virgins is more plausible than raisins, but after reading the review above I think it is worth considering. More importantly, Luxenberg's methods and ideas are worth exploring. (This is aside from what is stated in the Hadith and Sira, and what Muslims actually believe).

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 14, 2007 9:34 PM

Khaybar O-

Not even a jihadist is dumb enough to try to copulate with a raisin.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 14, 2007 10:11 PM

The Luxenberg book is now out in English (and is a revised, essentially third edition of the German). I've just received a review copy and will try, here or at www.newenglishreview.org, to review it as a mere layman, not a hugoye-level expert.

Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2007 10:21 PM

Hugh,

I'll look forward to it.

Profitsbeard,

"Khaybar O- Not even a jihadist is dumb enough to try to copulate with a raisin."

Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4678: "It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of God, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i.e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates)."

You mean you don't think the above jihadist was trading dates for white raisins?

“...the martyr is dressed in radiant robes of faith, he is married to houris (the paradisiac virgins)” Ibn-e-Majah, vol. 2, p.174

All dressed up for the grapes?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)."
Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it."

A giant raisin with a (spectacular) head cover.

Here's more:
http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/paradise.html

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 14, 2007 10:37 PM

It bothers me a bit to see so many posters be so rude to Spengler for the reason that I have really enjoyed reading his essays these several years. I can't say that I fully understand what he's saying half the time but I still enjoy reading him!

On that note - I hate to be obtuse, but the fact is that I still don't get precisely what he is saying here, in this statement, e.g., which appears to sum up the gist of his point:

"What is it that Muslims do to bridge the great gulf fixed between the eternal realm and ordinary human existence?....It is not simply that superstitious fellows blow themselves up as a way of obtaining 72 virgins in paradise.... It is that self-sacrifice in the form of violent death in warfare is the Muslim equivalent of a sacrament."

Say what?

1. How does rephrasing the essence of the matter from Muslims blowing themselves up for 72 virgins to Muslims blowing themselves up as "sacrament", actually contribute to furthering the likelihood that we will prevail in this war - I mean in a practical sense??

2. Maybe Spengler is projecting the complexity of his own religious experience onto Muslims here, by referring to "sacraments", as if this somehow gets us closer inside the jihadi's skin? But what are the grounds for this sort of projection? I get the distinct impression that Muslims are pretty "literal" about their religion, if you know what I mean. I don't detect the complex nuance about things that Spengler appears to be projecting here. Enough jihadis have been pretty blunt about the fact that they actually think they're heading off to the brothel in the sky, that I'm a little hard-pressed to attribute theological nuance here, without further evidence of such.

3. What about Spengler's point contradicts Spencer's point that the core Islamic texts teach violence, which is motivating the jihadis to blow themselves up? What, in other words is added specifically by positing that they are blowing themselves up as a form of "sacrament"? Wow! Call me simple, but that just makes it even worse! That just makes Islam seem even more evil at its core than it was already when I thought that jihadis were just a bunch of ignorant folks dreaming about the brothel in the sky. So now this act of sheer evil is a sacred "sacrament"? Yuk. If the point in that was to foster empathy, it's had the exact opposite effect. And yet, Spengler seems to be taking issue with an objective reading of the texts that concludes that Islam is at its core violent? Well what could be more violent in the most evil sense possible than the murder of other human beings as a form of "sacrament"?

I'm sorry, but je ne comprend pas le point! It's possible that if I don't get it, maybe others don't get it either. I can assure Spengler, however, that my failure to understand his point is an honest failure. If he seeks to elaborate his point further in future essays, for the dense among us, my mind is open to what he is trying to convey and I would read with great interest.

Posted by: Caroline at May 14, 2007 10:48 PM

Khaybar O-

Looking for a date by blowing themselves (up) ?

I know Mohammad (pb&j) said that blacks had "heads like raisins".

I'll have to compare the word he used there and the one for his 72 "virgins"
(alt. reading: "women who look like dried-up fruit"?).

There's a core of comic material here for a work similar to the classic "translation" black comedy: "THE TABLETS" by Armand Schwerner. (Worth a read.)

But, what we need to know is: do ayatollahs and imams get prunes?

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 14, 2007 10:58 PM

Ynkedoodl2,

I wasn't directing my comments about percentages at anything you stated. (Actually, in what is termed the "soft sciences" -- psychology, etc. -- there is a distinction made between what's termed "qualitative research" and "quantitative research". This is an issue I am not interested in dissecting. But, in the past, there have been massive debates (which is "better?" -- which should be used for what type of research?, blah, blah, blah)...my only point is that doing a quantitative analysis doesn't (necessarily) end a discussion. (who was it who made the crude analogy about a quart of ice cream and a bit of dog feces?) yeah, that's "quality" vs "quantity".

Anyway, I find much of what's in Islam -- even any, so-called "quality bits" as opposed to the vicious, cruel and disgusting bits, to be, well, at best dim parodies of the original or bad paraphrases lifted from other sacred texts, and I guess if I were to give full vent to what I *really* think about Islam, this post would be deleted -- so, let's just call it "myth-making" to be polite. (Maybe even calling it deceptive, attractive lies is too mild a statement...but, I'll leave that for others.)

Posted by: J.S. at May 14, 2007 11:58 PM

In choosing "Spengler" as a moniker, what is the intended message "Spengler" is sending? Was it Oswald Spengler's role as a darling of the Third Reich in general, and Joseph Goebbels in particular, that should impress us? Or his influence on the America First movement in the U.S. that aimed to keep America out of the war, so as not to get in the way of Germany rightfully conquering the "dark races" of the world? Why did "Spengler" choose "Spengler"?

Anyways, "Spengler" said

Islam-bashing, whether justified or not, is a waste of time.

More proof that "Spengler" has never read RS or JW/DW. The goal is not Islam-bashing; the goal is to (finally) put forth a comprehensible explanation for the violence that is occurring in almost every continent on the Earth in the name of Allah. If the study of Islam, and the Qur'an and the ahadith, provide the explanation for, and therefore the guide to ending, that violence, that is the exact opposite of a "waste of time".

"Spengler" writes pompous drivel full of misquotations and mischaracterizations of the persons he is putatatively responding.

Next!

Posted by: special_guest at May 15, 2007 2:19 AM

Ha ha, I meant "putatively". Go ahead, mock me. I earned it.

Posted by: special_guest at May 15, 2007 2:21 AM

Spengler makes the mistake of making a judgement based on his quote of a Karen Armstrong Koran quote:

KA "...the numerous verses that insist on the continuity of Islam with the People of the Book: "Say to them: We believe what you believe; your God and our God is one.""

Then Spengler writes:

S "It irks me no end when people with whom I would like to agree, such as Spencer, are wrong, and people whom I despise unconditionally, such as the odious Ms Armstrong, are right. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum: judge fairly even if the heavens fall in consequence."

S "Islam-bashing, whether justified or not, is a waste of time. Armstrong is quite correct [1] that the statements of the Koran are multifarious, ranging from direct instruction to kill unbelievers [2] to the peaceable sound-bite quoted above."

[1] After checking 16 translations, I can verify that the verse 29:46 does not say "We believe what you believe," nor is that phrase found anywhere in the Quran.

Here again is the quote:

29:46 (Pickthall). "And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we *surrender." *muslimoona

That something has been revealed does not necessarily imply that it has been, or is, believed. Thus Armstrong has distorted verse 29:46, implying that the Koran says categorically that Muslims and the People of the Book believe the same things. Actually, the Koran states that the non-Muslims must believe "in the like of" what the Muslims believe.

2:136. "Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
2:137. And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower."

[2] There is not the extreme variation, which Spengler claims, between 29:46 and verses calling for killing unbelievers, because 29:46 contains the phrase "...save with such of them as do wrong..." This exception leaves open a wide range of actions to deal with those who do wrong. Thus the verse does not contradict those which call for killing unbelievers who've done wrong. The Koran may indeed by "multifarious" in some respects, but the verse in question is not at odds with the more violent verses.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 15, 2007 5:33 AM

Spengler will not respond here again.

He cannot adequately respond to Spencer, and he knows it.

He is a coward, and a charlatan.

Not a scholar, and not worth the waste of time reading his drivel.

Posted by: CGW at May 15, 2007 9:07 AM

Khaybar Oasis -- excellent points. I would agree with "Spengler" that Armstrong is, indeed, "odious." I suppose I'd simply add, "sniveling, cowardly, and vile." I was just reading a fragment from Bat Ye'or's Eurabia, in which she writes: "Today, the slightest criticism of the dhimmi status is rejected, as it undermines the doctrine of the perfection of Islamic law and government. In the past, praise of the tolerance and justice of Islamic government expressed with all due gratitude, constituted an integral part of the dhimmi's obligations." And yet an Armstrong willingly and willfully (not through force) takes up the yoke of Dhimmitude -- slavishly praising her Arab "masters" in her servile, wallowing, prevaricating tones. She should make everyone's skin crawl.

Posted by: J.S. at May 15, 2007 10:17 AM

Spengler? If we're going to do interwar European philosophers, why not Pareto? or Wittgenstein? or Schlick?

Posted by: Kepha at May 16, 2007 7:33 AM

>

Traeh,

Truly Excellent post. I have reposted it over on Spengler's private discussion board

http://www.dunedain.net/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=4990#4990

If anyone comments on it and you would to respond please let me know. I can be reached by email at the email address listed here:

http://www.dunedain.net/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=63

Posted by: Tuor at May 16, 2007 6:25 PM

Spengler is very fond of straw men.

Posted by: Doclogic at May 20, 2007 1:00 AM