| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Hugh’s comparison of me to Pierre Menard got me thinking. The joke for Borges was on literary critics, who would take the same words in completely different ways depending on whether they written by a seventeenth-century Spaniard or a twentieth-century Frenchman. But Hugh has a point: the same thing goes for today’s jihad apologists. What matters is not what is said. What matters is who says it.
Some time ago, some Muslim leaders in America were exchanging emails about CAIR cofounder Omar Ahmad’s notorious statement that “Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” with the Qur’an “the highest authority in America.” Noting CAIR’s denials of the statement’s authenticity, one wrote: “I would tend to believe CAIR here....the statements in their attributed form sound like something Spencer would create.”
This email exchange was forwarded to me. Since I do not “create” statements by anyone but myself, I wrote to this individual and asked him to retract the suggestion that I invented this quote, or other quotes. The one making this claim is a prominent “moderate” Muslim who travels around the country telling Jewish groups that the Qur’an guarantees Jews the land of Israel (17:104) without getting around to telling them also that the Qur’an also says Jews are accursed for rejecting Muhammad (2:89) and that the Muslims are the true Jews (3:67-68).
I also asked him to retract an earlier statement he had made in an article: that “Spencer…misquotes verses of the Qur’an, takes things out of context, and shamelessly lies.” I asked him to provide examples of my doing these things, or issue a public retraction. He responded: “As for shameless lies, I stand by my assertion, especially after received material in which you claim Muhammad married his daughter in law etc.”
Now this was extraordinary. I “claim Muhammad married his daughter in law”? In reality, the Qur’an alludes to this incident (33:37), and the details are filled in by the historian Tabari and others. When I reminded this Muslim professor of these facts, he dismissed Tabari’s trustworthiness as a source. He did not explain, however, how it is that apologists for Islam including Muhammad Husayn Haykal and Karen Armstrong also write about Muhammad’s marrying his daughter-in-law.
If I originated this claim, my black Zionist arts must be especially powerful to cast it into the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira, and contemporary writings on Islam. Haykal never challenges the authenticity of the story, but asserts that this was the sort of thing to which Muhammad was entitled: “The rules which are law to the people at large do not apply to the great.” Nor does Armstrong say the story is inauthentic. She even records Aisha’s sharp comment after Muhammad received his divine scolding for hesitating to marry Zaynab: “Truly thy Lord makes haste to do thy bidding.” But then she explains that “today Muslims deny that Muhammad married Zaynab out of lust.” All right. But he did marry her, and previously she had been married to his adopted son.
Yet the professor who wrote to me with such venom, telling me that “the vileness the defines you could not be suppressed for long,” is unlikely to have written to Armstrong or to Haykal, if he were still alive, in the same vein, although they refer to the same incident that I am supposed to have invented.
So this is where Pierre Menard makes his grand reappearance. In the Qur’an, Allah says this to Muhammad about Zaynab, his former daughter-in-law, and Zaid, his adopted son (“the one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour”):
Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled. (33:37)
Those are for Muslims the words of the glorious book, the eternal book that has existed with him forever, the book that is perfect and contains all that human beings need to know in order to live properly and fashion a perfect society.
But when I quote that verse, and tell the story surrounding it, it is suddenly not so noble anymore. It is bigotry, it is racism, it is -- “Islamophobia”! It is the “vileness that defines” me!
Indeed, all those who dare to quote the jihadists when they explain their motives and goals -- for those explanations inevitably involve copious quotes from Qur’an and Hadith -- find the quotes magically transformed in their hands. No longer are they the authoritative religious texts of Islam. Now they have been transmogrified into vile bigotry and hatred. And if anyone dares note that the noble book and the vile bigotry consist of the same words, he will be tarred with the same charge of bigotry. We will be told that he is quoting it all Out Of Context! These “Islamophobes” will stop at nothing.
But try as they might, it isn’t so easy anymore to pull the wool over Infidel eyes. The cat is out of the bag. The Qur’an and the principal Hadith collections are readily available in English, translated by Muslims for Muslims. Anyone can check on the material I quote in my books and see if the quotations are inaccurate. The field, for the dishonest jihad apologists, is contracting. Which may be why they are growing so shrill and desperate, and playing games that hark back to the unforgettable Pierre Menard.
Posted by Robert at May 16, 2007 5:06 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
yes, *who* says what outweighs everything else. It's as you note in your book -- many Muslims do not seem to be operating on (or guided by) a basic set of universal principles. A universal principle, such as "tell the truth" -- or "do not commit murder" or "do not steal" -- it's absent. Instead of universal principles, one gets particularized judgments based on who said it or who did it (was it done by a Muslim or an Infidel?) once into this mode, all principles of justice (as understood by the West), truth, goodness, get thrown out. Instead it's contingent on a hierarchy (instead of being a nazi aryan vision of privilege, it's religiously based -- Muslims/Arabs at the top, followed by reverts, followed by Christians, followed by Jews, etc.).
Posted by: J.S.![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 16, 2007 5:22 PM
The meaning is based o the thoughts of the reader or the speaker, if you are a none muslim it is hate speech and hate thought ,If you are a believer it is all innocence and light
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 16, 2007 5:27 PM
It's Islamic Zen:
If a tree falls in an Islamic forest, only a Muslim will hear it.
at May 16, 2007 5:27 PM
Great riposte Robert.
As for Armstrong's insistence that Muhammad's usurpation of his adopted son's wife was not about lust, Tabari's account reveals the truth, that Muhammad stopped by Ziad's abode to visit him, that in Zaid's absence, Zainab answered the door, that the wind blew her garment revealing her figure, that Muhammad made a comment about her figure 'touching the hearts of men' or some such statement, that Zainab relayed the Prophet's remark to Zaid, that Zaid went to the Prophet and offered to divorce Zainab if the Prophet so desired, that the Prophet told Zaid to stay with his wife....and then, when the Prophet had time to ponder his desires, he received the revelation from God allowing the taking of his adopted son's wife.
Truly the examplar for all mankind.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 16, 2007 5:28 PM
Comparing you to Pierre Menard of the French in America is not exactly a compliment in any form Mr. Spencer. According Parkman, George Rogers Clarke and the works of Theodore Roosevelt, the French consisted of 2 forms.
1. The lazy who lived on little waterfront properties to access transportation and raised passles of barefoot, barheaded children running around in the snow.
2. The corrupt monarch/Catholic apppointees who fleeced the empire of wealth and ruined their own people.
The net result was the bush ranger or the le homme buisson who fled the entire colonial system for one of living off a squaw in the wilderness. A few rose to fantastic explorership, but they were forced to in fleeing the world.
Pierre Menard was exactly of that persona in being a government official in Illinois, but he could do nothing to stem the tide of the end of his people's domination on the former French colonies.
It does not matter the intent as it was une comparaison toujours unflattering.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 16, 2007 5:32 PM
Robert ...
"...telling Jewish groups that the Qur’an guarantees Jews the land of Israel (17:104) without getting around to telling them also that the Qur’an also says Jews are accursed for rejecting Muhammad (2:89) and that the Muslims are the true Jews (3:67-68)."
And yet Sheik Palazzi and others seem to believe that the promise to the Jews is there. Here's one site that references this:
http://www.amislam.com/pundit1.htm
Can you expand of this issue?
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 16, 2007 5:35 PM
But, instead of Flip Wilson's "The devil made me do it!" for Mo, it's "but Allah made me do it!" (ah, yes, how convenient, how handy that Allah is always so eager to do whatever the "prophet" bids!)...
Posted by: J.S. at May 16, 2007 5:39 PM
The sad truth is that these people - Muslims - believe this hogwash in their hearts. Their hearts will only be changed when it becomes a matter of physical survival, if they are to change at all. The only thing that has not changed in 5000 years of recorded history is human nature.
How I pray that I am wrong!
Posted by: Crusader at May 16, 2007 5:57 PM
I think I know who this is. It's Ingrid Mattison who heads the ISNA. This is only what I think, it's not a fact. If you must delete this, do so.
Posted by: wrathofasma at May 16, 2007 6:16 PM
"...yet Sheik Palazzi and others seem to believe that the promise to the Jews is there." from post above.
First, Sheik Palazzi (as he himself mentions) is in a minority. it's not a majority opinion nor, I'm assuming, one which is given much clout in the Muslim world.
Secondly, Shiek Palazzi does not say he believes Jews have been given the land of Israel as a "promise" from Allah (that would be to recognize a special covenant the Jews have with G-d -- and that's anathema for Islam). What Shiek Palazzi says is that (right now or for the time being) Allah has given the land to the Jews, just as Allah has given some land to the Egyptians. But, as with all things being in the hands of Allah, Allah, could, of course, reverse that and take the land away from the Jews. (in other words, the Jews were righteous, Allah gave them land; if the Jews are unrighteous, Allah takes away the land.) Note -- no covenant.
Thirdly, Jews are not cursed, so long as they recognize that Islam is superior (in other words, in so far as Judaism aligns itself with Muslim teachings, then Jews are "acceptable" -- that is the day in which Judaism ceases to be Judaic and becomes Islamic, then Jews will be ok...but, so long as Jews persist in their ways -- ie., refuse to recognize the greatness and perfection of "the prophet" and stubbornly persist in their "errors", they are cursed. do you see how this works? It would be like telling a Democrat that everything he says and does is wonderful, so long as it's in accord with Republican policies.
Posted by: J.S. at May 16, 2007 6:19 PM
J.S., Palazzi's statements give a lot of current-day political support to Israel, which he says should maintain Gaza and the West Bank. Yes, his position is a minority one, and yes, I suppose the Islamic reliance on the idea of "fate" suggests that Palazzi might be okay with Israel's destruction if history brought that destruction.
He surely seems to be a friend of the Jews there. Given his support for Israel's keeping the "Palestinian territories" on Islamic grounds, it doesn't seem like taquiyya; it seems like his interpretation of Islam.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 16, 2007 6:28 PM
Oh, yes, and this gets into the notion of "The Other." Islam is like a project to replace and supplant. (especially noteworthy is that claim that "Everyone's born a Muslim!!") Ironically, one of the obssesions of the "left" has been their insistence on recognition of "The Other." yet, they seem to want to support a "religion" which is hell bent on erasing "the other." (genocide's ok by them) .. as I laugh...oh the irony...
Posted by: J.S. at May 16, 2007 6:31 PM
Oh, I agree that Sheik Palazzi is a good friend of Israel (too bad he's in a minority), and I do believe he has a much better notion of "right" "wrong", "good" and "evil." He also interprets jihad as an inner struggle. Too bad his co-religionists aren't more like him...
Posted by: J.S. at May 16, 2007 6:35 PM
Robert:
Have you ever considered that folks may have been waiting breathlessly to receive divine guidance on the burning question of how to regard the marriageability of your adopted son's wife?
Allah knows best!
Posted by: Moonzoo at May 16, 2007 7:27 PM
champ,
Bingo! You got that spot on!
Hit it right out of the ball park as far as the truth about Islam is concerned.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 16, 2007 7:34 PM
One last comment. The other day another poster (writing in jest, I believe) mentioned how all of science was (praise Allah!) the work/invention of Muslims. This lie is repeated over and over again in Europe, also to a lesser extent in Canada (ie, that all inventions, science, etc., was islamic in origin)...as I laugh.
This claiming of "ownership" of inventions to which Muslims have zero historical claim has always struck me as not only insulting, but farcical and ridiculous. (Ditto for the "Everyone's born Muslim!") It's also narcissistic and disturbed. It's not giving credit where credit's due.
And isn't this similar to a Borges character claiming to be a "Cervantes" because he's plagiarized Cervantes -- taken word for word, line by line another's writing and claimed it as "his"? Now, isn't that whole project somehow "Islamic?" I mean, the sheer audacity -- the arrogance...
Posted by: J.S. at May 16, 2007 7:54 PM
"What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine," this is an evil person.
Posted by: J.S. at May 16, 2007 8:06 PM
"The field, for the dishonest jihad apologists, is contracting. Which may be why they are growing so shrill and desperate, and playing games that hark back to the unforgettable Pierre Menard."
100% correct!
You have them on the run! Take no prisoners. I heard you say on the Atlas Blog that you thought we are losing however on this front we are not. Defending the Quran and Islam in general is a very hard thing to do. The best they can do is gag people with laws and threats. However as long as people continue to be brave and work for the truth the enemy will be exposed.
Once exposed then have no mercy!
Thank You, Sir Robert Spencer for your leadership of our small but growing army of anti-jihadis.
It is the foundation of all!
"Once you get them running, you stay right on top of them, and that way a small force can defeat a large one every time." Stonewall Jackson
at May 16, 2007 9:02 PM
The al-Qur'an was not "written", but was recorded on bits of bark, flat rocks, animal skin, etc. by followers of Mohammad who heard him "recite". (Some 'suras' were eaten by a passing beast... whether jackass or goat is not clear...)
Later, these "sayings" (since Mohammad was an illiterate) were collected by a Muslim Caliph, who destroyed any earlier collections that he didn't like. (Other Korans?... hmmm....)
So, the al-Qur'an is a partial accumulation, censored by a later man, of sayings by a slave-holding pedophile warlord.
How this mish-mash gained any respectability is one of those curious transformations of human credulity mating with bestial rapaciousness and raw power hunger.
It is a document more of human gullibility than transcendent divinity.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2007 10:22 PM
Jackasses and goats are far too evolved...the "beast" was probably either an eight-legged critter or some passing dung beetle.
Posted by: J.S. at May 16, 2007 11:12 PM
J.S.-
LOL!
Anything that would devour the Koran is okay by me.
Dung beetles sound plausible.
Rolling little balls of shredded suras into the sunset.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2007 11:44 PM
I have to laugh at the Muslim idea that if someone reads all the canonical works of Islam, they will drop down to their knees and recite their ridiculous creed about Muhammed and Allah. This belief must be some kind of cosmic joke being played by whatever real god there is, although I have to say from my human, all too human perspective, the joke is wearing kind of thin. I could read the Koran and the other canonical works from now until kingdom come and there is no way in hell that I'm going to give up my basically empiricist worldview, which has been pretty much the only worldview that has enabled humanity to lift itself out of the morass of fanaticism. To the extent that I have metaphysical and ontological philosophical perspectives beyond empiricism, based on my own reflections and historical study, they don't overlap with the philosophy of Islam in the slightest, nor do I anticipate they will if they continue to evolve over time.
I have reached a critical mass of data about Islam whereby for the rest of my life I will only be able to speak of it with contempt at its pretentious supremacism, (based on nothing more than its ability to add a bit of structure to an otherwise chaotic pre-Islamic Arab society), when I am speaking openly. I hope some day to never have to speak of it again, either in its jihadist or "moderate" forms. As Hugh says, implacable opposition to Islam is the best litmus test of intelligence in our time.
Posted by: venividivici at May 17, 2007 12:03 AM
profitsbeard,
Yes, yes, I can picture it now! In the form of a Far Side Cartoon: a picture depicting dung beetles busily "Rolling little balls of shredded suras into the sunset" with the caption: "The Ultimate Answer to the Universe: Sura 42..."
Posted by: J.S. at May 17, 2007 12:20 AM
"But then she explains that “today Muslims deny that Muhammad married Zaynab out of lust.”
Why would any Muslim deny that Mohammad married Zaynab out of lust. Isn't the satisfying of ones lustul desires the ultimate reward for the Male Muslim?
The Paradise that Muhammad created for his faithful followers is the ultimate in unrestrained sexual activity. Young men kill themselves in their headlong rush to get to the Islamic orgy mouhammad promised them.
Is the Muslim denial of Mohammad's lust for Zanab a suggestion that lust is something sinful or unbecoming to a Prophet? If so, what paradise is Mohammad residing in now?
The fact is that Mohammad was the least spiritual religious leader in history. Allah to him was Someone to satiffy his lustful desires in this life, and to continue to do so in the next.
at May 17, 2007 12:41 AM
That's something of an inside joke, based on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe. "The Ultimate answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is...42."
Posted by: J.S. at May 17, 2007 12:41 AM
With the advent of the internet, this is probably the first time in history the muslims have had to defend their religion so publicly and on such a large scale. They're in shock. They can't handle uppity dhimmis questioning their texts. It sends them into a blind rage.
Also, I think that in their heart of hearts they know islam and Mohammed are evil.
Posted by: Silvester at May 17, 2007 2:25 AM
Author of Quran and Hadith: Iblis.
Posted by: abad at May 17, 2007 3:31 AM
Muslims hate the truth, especially when the infidels know it...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 17, 2007 6:33 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)