When faced with an entire culture of liars building their trust on a prophet of lies and a false god, the truth gets buried extremely well.

And the sites of others temples are built upon...

And the graves of non-Muslim heroes are desecrated...

And ancient monuments are torn down...

And truth-sayers are stabbed, kidnapped, beheaded or blown to bits...

And by the end of 18 impressionable years from infant to adult, even the Muslims that should be smart enough to tell a lie from the truth no longer know how to recognize the difference.

And over here on a street corner in Baghdad there's a meeting of "The World is Flat Club".

Posted by: Foehammer at May 18, 2007 3:56 PM

13. He's a Jew/Zionist neocon/neoliberal imperialist/Crusader!

Posted by: Beagle at May 18, 2007 3:57 PM

id like the good folks at CAIR to explain to me how child rape is a good thing. wasnt one of mohammed's wives a six year old when he married her? last i heard she was all of a NINE YEARS OLD when he physically consumated the marriage. Wow, i really dont think a child molestor is the image of God.

And Smiting the unbeleivers??? didnt David Koresh try that too? How is Mohammed and his violent henchmen any different?

And explain to me how a 'fatwa' over rules the parts of the quran that ban violence against innocents, etc. Christianity and judiaism dont have loopholes allowing this, and CERTAINLY dont have houses of worship that preach it night and day, without exception.

eff

Posted by: eff_Islam at May 18, 2007 4:02 PM

And when all else fails there is always the good ol' "DEATH TO THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM!!"

*sigh*

Posted by: Had.Enough at May 18, 2007 4:02 PM

Suggestion: Post the question at the top of your answer. Put each separate question in a separate post.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 18, 2007 4:05 PM

Have the sheet with the prepared list of objections as people enter the hall. It will allow the objectors, and the rest of the audience, to become thoroughly acquainted as they sit waiting for the lecture, or in the interstices of question-and-answer time, with all of those categories. It will make the Muslim objectors distinctly uneasy, as they realize that the rest of the audience has already been well-prepared.

It's not quite like the convention of comedians, where they all know the jokebooks by heart, so as they rise or descend in the elevator together in the hotel where the convention is being held, all one of them need to is say "#247" or "#639" to produce hilarity among the others.

Posted by: Hugh at May 18, 2007 4:12 PM

LOL ... yes: "'shut up,' he explained," is always a good one.

Here is one which may be too esoteric for inclusion, altho Ali Sina has a fascinating (and typically brilliant) debate on exactly this point on FFI: "The opponents of Islam mistakenly rely on the hadith and sira, when the koran alone is authoritative."

As Ali Sina proves, this argument (made by the so-called Submitters) is just as bogus as the rest, both on its own terms and in the wider context.

Posted by: Moonzoo at May 18, 2007 4:13 PM

Did you hear about the guest at the comedian's convention who got up and said, "eleven," eliciting total silence?

When he asked his comedian friend what he did wrong, he was told it's all in the timing.

Posted by: Moonzoo at May 18, 2007 4:17 PM

I have certainly also noticed the mindnumbingly stereotypical, and always unsubstantiated, pseudo objections floating around the Muslim thoughtbyte sphere. It makes you wonder, does it not, whether these are being taught as handy refutals of the naughty kuffar, like Jehovah's Witnesses and fundies always know how to deal with the issues of Kain's wife and the contradictory lineages of Jesus, or whether this is just something you pick up subconsciously when you realize that the truth about Islam will never sit well with the kuffar.

Posted by: anti-uffe at May 18, 2007 4:22 PM

Some of the points above have refutations that are under construction here. Note that there is a bonanza/plethora of topics that are available, so other volunteers aside from the 3 there now, are welcome. The ones that you will find responses to (although the phrasing of the points above may vary are

• He's taking verses out of context
  
• He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic
  
• Only Muslims can address the tough topics
  

• He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot
  
• What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?
  
• What about the violent verses in the Bible?
  

Sorry your PC melted on you, Robert - looks like it was being PC, for a change. Next time, just compose it on Word, and then launch.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 18, 2007 4:49 PM

14. No one in the West can ever understand the beauty and complexity of Islam since they have not grown up under that culture.

(jihadwatch: the site for those who understand that the emperor has no clothes)

Posted by: s at May 18, 2007 4:50 PM

14) Robert Spencer has a beard, and since he's not Muslim, that must make him a Hassidic Jew and therefore a liar.

Or a Mac user, which is possibly even worse.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 18, 2007 4:51 PM

"The Qur'an is hard to understand because its a poorly plagiarized, literary pastiche cobbled together from hundreds of snippets of imperfectly remembered or imagined sayings..."
-- from a posting above

Possibly. Possibly, as well, if one is convinced by the impossible-to-ignore (except by Muslims and non-Muslims afraid to offend them) arguments and evidence presented by Christoph Luxenberg, for whom the Qur'anic Ur-text is a Syriac (Syriac being the Aramaic used in and around Edessa) lectionary.

Certainly it blends pre-Islamic Arab pagan lore, bits and pieces of stories and doctrine from Judaism and Christianity, and adds a doctrine of dominance and endless warfare against Infidels that both justifies, and promotes, the conquest by Muslim Arabs of other peoples far richer, more settled, more advanced than were the primitive Arabs.

Here is Carlyle's famous take on the Qur'an: "The Koran [Qur'an] is hard to understand because its a poorly plagiarized, literary pastiche cobbled together from hundreds of snippets of imperfectly remembered or imagined sayings."

Could any intelligent Infidel disagree?

Posted by: Hugh at May 18, 2007 4:53 PM

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic

The post by Ynkedoodl2 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 18, 2007 04:42 PM above suggests a response to Muslims on the Arabic issue. Muhammad couldn't read any language, including Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

That is why he got those books wrong and plagiarized them wrong into the Quran. This makes the Quran wrong. The Quran is wrong because it copies books written in other languages, and its pretend author didn't know those languages or how to read any language. This is why the Quran makes no sense.

This feeds into answers on everything else, but I will try not to break my own suggestion of one question per post.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 18, 2007 5:00 PM

Robert Spencer wrote:

as Ali Sina says he'll remove his site if proven wrong, so will I.

Maybe it would be good for Robert Spencer regularly to issue a public challenge promising to remove his website if proven wrong. He would thus turn the website into a sort of public contest, and audiences flock in large numbers to contests: races, the Olympics, boxing matches, etc. Further, Spencer would give opponents a stronger incentive to debate him...they'd think, "what if I can defeat Spencer's site? I'd become an Islamic hero..."

Posted by: traeh at May 18, 2007 5:07 PM

l have heard thie from some islamic appologists, that the reason there is so much violence in the koran is due that it was written in times that were violence. Like in the bad old days things were much worse and so muhummud had to be more violent.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 18, 2007 5:17 PM

I love the idea of numbering this common "arguments" and refuting them in advance.

Cost of the cards, roughly $0.89.
Seeing the look of a talking head as you pass the cards out on TV? . . . priceless

Posted by: JSobieski at May 18, 2007 5:22 PM

When this website is taken down, we will all be in hiding, in custody or hung. In a sense, most of us are already in hiding. In another sense, we are already in the custody of the PC Orwellians.

Call your Senator and say no to amnesty and guest worker. Use the Fort Dix Six and Islamberg as reasons and that the Beltway snipers may have been sheltered around DC by the same group. Although not technically a response to the numbered list, it is right now the response we need.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 18, 2007 5:32 PM

15) Love & Support Israel/The Jews

Posted by: champ at May 18, 2007 5:39 PM

When you give them the list of 12, include the refutation of each one. In fact that would make an interesting page to have a link to from the sidebar

Posted by: Don Singleton at May 18, 2007 5:40 PM

"3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic"

Is that why there are so many non-Arabic speaking muslims? Because they don't understand the koran, and if they did, they would see the absurdity in the whole "allah is the true god and mohammed is his only true prophet" thing?

Posted by: walterc at May 18, 2007 5:46 PM

If enough itemized objections are identified, maybe the numbered cards could be put into Bingo format. That way, church groups could have Bingo nights that are both relaxing and instructive, particularly if objections are raised by Moslem activists..."Hmmm. Objections to this meeting are based upon alleged defamation of Islam. That'd be number 47. Hey! I've got 'Bingo.'"

Posted by: Chatillon at May 18, 2007 5:47 PM

BTW, not that it matters except it will bug the living daylights out of me unless I do this, but the correct punchline for the Comedian's Convention joke is: "It's all in the delivery," not, as I wrote above, it's all in the "timing." That is a much funnier line and actually makes it analagous to the discussion.

Posted by: Moonzoo at May 18, 2007 5:56 PM

So many things could be added. I recall the nasty, nasty criticism that you are only masquerading as a christian, but you're really a Jew! (Boy, they sure know how to hit below the belt, don't they? :-) ) And a Zionist to boot! And didn't one fellow, pinned down by references to authoritative islamic sources but unwilling to surrender his point, accuse you of having demonic zionist magical powers and using them to alter the Koran and Hadith? Wow. That's gotta be #101 on the list!

I think one "refutation" that we are blinded to is simply the following:

#102: He is criticizing Islam.

We kuffar don't realise, and strangely enough, the Islamists and their apologists appear not to realise that we don't realise, that they regard this as a self-evident, complete refutation of all your arguments.

Although it is a logical non-sequitor, this doesn't seem to bother them in the least. The argument goes: 1. Spencer is criticizing Islam (which they would posit as self-evident); 2. Ergo, all his statements are wrong and invalid. Case closed.

Although not all are bold enough to add, there is a point three: 3. Consequently he is deserving of death (and the corollary that somebody ought to make it their job to carry this out).

Not an argument even recognized by most kuffar, but apparently quite acceptable to many muslims. The immunity of Islam to criticism carries with it an automatic refutation of all who would try. Even if you are not criticising Islam, if by bald assertion it can be argued that your are, then anything you have to say is automatically null and void.

This is not as far-fetched as it may seem to us initially; it is appeal to axiomatics -- the immunity of Islam to criticism is, to them, an axiom, self-evident, and an integral part of all arguments. They use it against each other, they use it against the Kuffar, they burn churches and synagogues over it; it is, to them, quite a tangible "truth".

To understand their reasoning you must insert some self-evident truth into the argument in its place, like (if you are prepared to accept it as an axiom, that is: 1+1=2. So, along come Spencer and says many things about your religion, but in the middle of it, integral to Spencer's words, is a statement whose immediate implication is that 1+1=3. Aha! You say, Spencer is discarding a fundamental fact of arithmetic, and so his argument, insofar as it depends upon this point, is invalid!

What they don't realise is that it is they who are making out that 1+1=3. But Spencer's arithmetic, so far, checks out.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 18, 2007 5:56 PM

How about a public challenge to any significant islamic apologist or figure to please give substance to these criticisms in writing and they will be debated, civilly and with full disclosure on a portion of the site with a link right beside Islam 101? You can silence reader comments or restrict them to a single line, so that the main voice of the debate can go largely uninterrupted. I realise this is Ali Sina's stock and trade, but it won't harm you to get into the online debate business; there seems to be no shortage of those with the bluster, might as well have a blank list of "takers" to underscore the point that none of these folks really thinks they have any real refutations to your work.

This would be a vast improvement over the sound-bite "debates" you're getting on radios, where there is no substance but lots of rhetoric and ... oops, no time to show my wonderful proof (sic) that Spencer is a fraud.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 18, 2007 6:06 PM

A number of years ago I thought about developing a card filing system (like a roll-o-dex, only electronic) for refuting standard, mindlessly repetitive Islamic claims. As I also recall, a long, long time ago (previous to Windows 95), MicroSoft had bundled in its operating system a freebie program (was it called Card File?), anyway, it was a program which had the features of a card (like recipe cards) filing system (like the ones in the ancient past you could find at libraries -- remember them? anyone? anyone? no..ok). Anyway, the filing cards (being electronic) could be easily indexed, then sorted. So, you could "key" or "mark" certain words as index words...then all the cards with said words could come up in a "sort" operation. I think in a live debate situation (with lap top), this could be very handy...(oh, and I think the Card File program was superior to, say, Powerpoint because it dealt only with text -- no pictures...so, much faster sort.)

Posted by: J.S. at May 18, 2007 6:07 PM

"If you go to Amazon.com and read the reviews for Robert Spencer's books, or watch any interview with a Muslim “moderate,” you'll see and hear the following arguments from the Muslim side repeated over and over again:"

Why are all these Muslim Moderates expending so much time and energy attacking Robert Spencer for his misrepresentation of Islam? I've never heard of Mr. spencer being linked to a car bombing or other act of terror against innocent bystander.

Shouldn't these moderates be defending the true Islam by enumerating all the theological and scriptural errors employed by the Jihadists to justify their murderous acts of terror?
I would think that this would be their first priority in defending against those who would defame Islam with a corrupt interpretation of the Koran and Ahadith. Aren't the jihadists the real liars that need to be set straight about the peaceful nature of their faith?

The answer is that the Jihadists are not any real danger to Islam, but Mr. Spencer is. The bombs that Robert Spencer throws are far more lethal to Islam than the ones the Jihadists throw. It's truth that they fear most, and the thing they most have to combat.

Posted by: rational at May 18, 2007 6:09 PM

I think this "Islam" is just a big ploy by the Berlitz company to improve their Arabic language CD sales.

13. Doesn't believe that the devil sleeps in the upper region of the nose at night.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 18, 2007 6:12 PM

4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials.

You can be an expert on a subject without being part of it. All you need is an IQ above 100 and the ability to read. To say you have to be a Muslim to understand Islam is a false statement unless they can claim texts and historical knowledge unavailable outside the club.

Personally I am not an expert on Islam and thankfully I have no credentials other than that which the Islamic faith forced upon me at 2pm GMT on the 11th of September 2001. When my mum called me in to watch something I have never seen before and hopefully will never see again on the BBC.

Even walking to the village shop that day entailed meeting amazed people who could not believe what was happening in New York. But it felt like an attack on us too and even though it was thousands of miles away it meant something much deeper than just another news story.

Then America and the West went after the Taleban and Osama. We were doing the right thing. The Taleban were monsters who put to death women in a football stadium for crimes that would see the female population of the world decimated under Sharia. These weren’t and are still not human beings in any way that a westerner can understand.

My life has changed in a big way since Islam decided to strive for world domination. I went from a motor trader to a Humvee mechanic by 2003. In 2004 I got my brother a job with the 1st ID and he went on to Kuwait and then nearly two years in Balad. My stepdad finishes a year in Balad this week.

Mohammed Atta’s actions started this and it is every Muslims duty to denounce his actions before the world goes up in flames.

In my opinion it is in their interests because the world has changed since Saladin. The west has the technological advantage and the internet precludes unnoticed slow Islamisation.

Has Ex Sgt Brown said: Islam is drowning in its own blood! In comparison the West is business as usual even though my family has been changed.

Posted by: Mert at May 18, 2007 6:14 PM

Thank you Robert Spencer for all you have done and are are doing to help us understand the danger we face and to help us rally to defend our freedoms. Your patience, academic integrity, careful reasoning, and perfect gentlemanliness are an inspiration to me, as I am sure, they are to many others.

As a Friday exercise, here's a quick go at the generic Muslim talking points.

1. He's taking verses out of context.

Robert Spencer takes the same verses, in the same context, that Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Ahmadinejad, and thousands of other Islamic jihadists and jihadi organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah take when justifying their unrelenting assaults on civilization across the globe.

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot.

Robert Spencer analyzes the ideological roots of the international jihadist movement. The fact that those roots are clearly derived, by distinquished Muslim scholars and thinkers themselves, from explicit doctrines of the “religion” called Islam is a simple fact. Stating simple facts is not bigotry. And by the way, Islam is not a race.

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic.

Robert Spencer reads and writes Arabic. He has studied the Arabic Koran (and many English versions, for comparative analysis).

4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials.

Robert Spencer has spent over two decades studying Islam, from the canonical documents (the Koran, aHadith, and Sira), to the writings of contemporary and historical Muslim scholars, to the writings of a myriad of western observers and historians.

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand.

Muslim understanding of Islam comes from unquestioning acceptance of Islamic doctrines, without any allowance for skeptical inquiry, on pain of punishment for blasphemy. Robert Spencer, who lives in a culture that embraces free and skeptical inquiry, approaches all Islamic writings and declarations with studied academic skepticism and tests each idea against established historical facts and strict adherence to rules of logical exposition. Robert Spencer probably understands Islam better than most Muslims do. He certainly understands Islam from a perspective that, because of a Mohammedan blinkered mental upbringing, no Muslim can. In any case, most of the “complexity” and “mystery” of Islam is simple muddy confusion, as Mohammed mixed elements of Christianity, Judaism, and paganism into his plagiarized concoction of self-serving ideas called the Koran.

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?

The Crusades were a defensive war in response to centuries of bloody Islamic assaults on European civilization. In any case, Robert Spencer is from the United States of America. The United States did not exist at the time of the Crusades. The current Islamic assault on the United States has no justification, other than Islam’s own Koran-driven obsession with world conquest for Allah.

7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?

The violent verses in the Bible (Old Testament) relate to specific times and places and peoples. Today, Christianity is motivated by the New Testament, based on the teachings of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. In contrast, the Koran calls for violent struggle against and subjugation of the “other,” from now until Doomsday, based on the violent life example of Mohammed, a bloodthirsty and sex-crazed 7th Century warlord. Robert Spencer is a Catholic. He is peaceful, but sees a clear duty in defending his own noble and decent civilization (and our friends across the globe) from today’s fascist global assault, which is clearly based on the uncompromising Islamic core doctrines.

8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims.

When a Muslim decides to become pious, that is, to return to the fundamentals of his religion, he embraces the example of Mohammed, a man who killed, raped, murdered, and looted, using his new “religion” Islam as an excuse. The Islamic jihadists across the globe who do the same in imitation are therefore “real” Muslims. They endlessly say so themselves, and no one of authority in the Muslim world contradicts them, because they cannot without rejecting explicit verses in the Koran and without contradicting other directives derived from the Sunnah. Robert Spencer merely points this out, and asks the “moderate” Muslims--If you are really peaceful, then why don’t you “real Muslims” do something about reigning in these “misinterpreters of Islam?”

9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics.

To become a Muslim, one only has to recite the Shehada three times. He does not have to read the Koran, or learn Arabic, or know anything about the Islamic doctrines, including the vile doctrine of death for apostates (a potentially nasty surprise to the unwary!). How does this make the everyday Muslim able to “address the tough topics?” Muslims are required to simply accept everything in the Koran and the Hadith as revealed truth, and may not question anything there in the slightest degree, even if well-documented historical events, archeological findings, or established scientific facts conflict, not even for academic discussion. How does that severe mental constraint make Muslims qualified to “address the tough topics?” Robert Spencer, a free man of the highest integrity, following the rigorous analytical protocols of an advanced civilization that has evolved 14 centuries past the immutable framework of Islam, is far better able to “address the tough topics” than any pious Muslim.

Posted by: Stendec at May 18, 2007 6:16 PM

I'm glad the Young Muslim site has a link to Faith Freedom. Ali Sina's a real delight to read and I try not to miss his posts.
I like seeing these poor slobs writhing under the boot of an intellectual superior. For all the misery Islam has caused, they deserve nothing but contempt.

Posted by: jewdog at May 18, 2007 6:18 PM

Too bad you can't charge a fine proportional to how many gazillion times an issue has already been addressed, and how annoying it is to rehash. And fines would go up for multiple offenses. Anyway...

7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?

Two part answer:

The first part of addressing violent verses in the Bible or Qur'an is to acknowledge they exist. With the former, we do. Sometimes it's hard to get Muslim apologists even to take that step (like Edina Lekovic accusing you of lying about 9:29, or other things people accuse you of making up, like items from Bukhari).

If you can get them to take that step, they may move on to other cop-outs listed above, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12. But for the purpose of addressing "tu quoque" arguments, the next step is addressing the difference in how violent verses in the Bible are used by believers, in contrast with the Qur'an.

For one thing, historical battles in the Old Testament are historical battles, and not a how-to guide to dealing with people you don't like until the end of time. Two sub-topics come to mind:

1. Israel: The Old Testament teaches that this is the Promised Land for the Jewish people. Does this motivate their claim to it in modern times? Sure it does. And what's wrong with
that?

Here, the tables turn on tu quoque, since Muslims think it's their promised land, too (along with the rest of the world!): An apologist may want to split hairs on "Chosen People." Pin them down on the supercessionist, replacement theology in the Qur'an, the fact that Islam does not accept the Torah, as-is, as divine revelation, but a corrupted version of lost scriptures, and all of the evidence that "Palestine" and "the Palestinian people" are concepts fabricated for political ends.

2. Revelation: I'm not sure if the events in Revelation count as a historical battle, since, if one believes it literally, it hasn't happened yet. But it may be cited as a motivator for alleged Christian violence against Muslims, in that some may be trying to bring about the end of the world. Many Muslim and secular anti-Christian apologists like to portray all Christians in this light.

The best thing an individual can do is to know what his/her respective denomination teaches about it, since the first defense against this allegation is the fact that Revelation means many different things to different groups: some take it literally, some take it as an allegorical text. And even if one does believe in a literal rendering of Armageddon at some point in the future, one can ask the apologist for people and quotations from them, where someone has actually said, "Let's go out and kill group X or Y because of Chapter A, Verse B!" If they find any, they will be fringe groups that cannot be said to represent others (Westboro-type stuff).

The organization of Christian denominations around central teaching authorities (whether popes or local pastors) is a significant advantage there. Then, what can they do, try to tell you that people think it but don't come out and say it? It can't be proven.

Back on a more general level, occurrences of violence in the Qur'an happen in the reverse order as that of the Bible: the Bible gets less violent as it goes along chronologically with progressive revelations regulating human behavior and refining human beings' understanding of God: By the end, there are items like the Beatitudes and the idea of turning the other cheek, suffering willingly after Jesus' example as a path to self-improvement and the salvation of one's soul, forgiving wrongdoers, and leaving vengeance to God.

On the other hand, progressive revelations in the Qur'an, whose organization obfuscates the order of their appearance, get more violent.

Posted by: MarisolJW at May 18, 2007 6:20 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2023603,00.html

Seems to me these people know what islam is and what the koran is also.

At the very least they know what islam understands.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at May 18, 2007 6:25 PM

There was a post here (at either Jihadwatch or Dhimmiwatch) which contained a list of famous people's sayings with respect to islam...like the one by Carlyle. One of the best summations of islam I've come across was written by Max Weber in his text "Sociology of Religion." (I have the quote somewhere...can't find it). (when I first read it, I thought Weber was being too harsh, too critical...but, as time has elapsed, I find his summation increasingly relevant, perceptive.

Posted by: J.S. at May 18, 2007 6:30 PM

Zena,

Do the apologists who say

"Like in the bad old days things were much worse and so muhummud had to be more violent."

ever try to explain why they have to follow Muhammad's violent example fourteen centuries later? Why doesn't Islam progress with the rest of humanity?

Posted by: PMK at May 18, 2007 6:30 PM

MarisolJW --

This is an old post of mine that ties into the last sentence of your comment that I think bears repeating:

Muhammad's life can be divided into two parts -- the tolerant years in Mecca and the aggressive years in Medina. The Qur'an reflects those two parts, and that is why at times someone will point out a teaching in the Qur'an that seems to indicate that Islam teaches its adherents to live at peace with their enemies.

When Muhammad began to preach his revelations from Allah to the people, he believed that a peaceful religion was a good strategy for attracting people, especially the Jewish people, to the teachings of Islam.

When Muhammad saw that his attempts to win over the Jews through peaceful coexistence were not successful, he "launched a new strategy, a strategy based on power. This is when he declared jihad (holy war) and went out to convert nonbelievers to Islam by the sword."

Muslims today are taught to interrupt the Qur'an through a principle of progressive revelation known as 'nasikh'. Any contradiction in the Qur'an is solved by using the newest revelation. If anyone denies the continuing revelation of Allah to Muhammad, they are denying Islam itself.

In summary, the peaceful days are over folks.

Posted by: champ at May 10, 2007 03:35 PM

Posted by: champ at May 18, 2007 6:33 PM

We all know Infidelobia when we hear it. No matter the Lauguage used.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 18, 2007 6:38 PM

I have a modest proposal to address the inability of Mr. Spencer's opponents to itemize specific lies, errors, distortions, and evasions. It's obvious that those who have tried to itemize and catalog Mr. Spencer's hundreds of lies, errors, distortions, and evasions have been overwhelmed by the task and have abandoned the effort. As we have seen, this leaves them open to the accusation that such lies, errors, quotations out of context, and evasions via ridicule *do not exist*. Pfaugh!!

Obviously what is needed is a clearinghouse web site to facilitate data collection and categorization. It would have checkboxes or pull down menus ("lie," "quotation out of context," "factual error," "evasion by riducule," etc., etc.), search engines covering Mr. Spencer's online writings and the repository of Muslim texts at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/, and pull-down lists of his book titles, all with the aim of supporting convenient, accurate, and precise documentation of his many offenses, with direct hyperlinks wherever possible to the offending text or video clip and to the correct textual quotation or historical fact.

While the bulk of the data entry and research would be done by civic minded volunteers, such a clearinghouse would need some support for diskspace and bandwidth. I propose publishing the catalog of items in such a way that they could be used in a kind of bingo game. As Mr. Spencer or an opponent wrote something or said something, the online bingo players could recognize a previously documented lie, distortion, error, or evasion and enter it onto their virtual bingo cards. Of course there would be entry fees and prizes.

Thus we overcome the problem of the sheer volume of lies, errors, distortions, and evasions by involving many volunteers to record and catalog them, we provide instant refutations useful both in writing and in person, and we channel the anti-Spencer anger and outrage into cheerful family entertainment.

Posted by: Pilgrim at May 18, 2007 6:56 PM

Thank you, Robert! I have been trying to talk to my friends about the dangers of misinterpreting the Koran and how we shouldn't be purposefully ignoring the current state of the country/world in regards to Islam...yet I am frequently considered Islamophobic here in Massachusetts.

Jihadwatch has really helped my talking points and I'd like to think that I've opened a few eyes in the last year.

I plan to print out a card and score the next "debate" with a moderate Muslim mouthpiece that I find on the ever-so-wonderful MSM.

Thanks again!

Tom

Posted by: deseeded at May 18, 2007 7:44 PM

One thing that has always been vexing to me is the lack of reciprocity in Muslim countries compared to non-Muslim (or Westernized) countries.

For example, as Saudi Arabia funds the construction of absolutely "ginormous" mosque in Italy (I believe), no "infidel" would dare build a church in Saudi Arabia...Or in Turkey, FOR EXAMPLE, it is illegal for non-Muslims to own land.

These are mere examples of the lack of reciprocity. I'm not a scholar in Muslim studies by any means, but I know that Christians or Jew are persecuted and essentially possess absolutely no rights in Muslim culture...

Posted by: Todd Anthony at May 18, 2007 7:44 PM

Robert:

I do believe you're enjoying parking their @@$es, and I believe you speak for us, so in response, I sum it up in one word:

KUDOS

Posted by: jcom972 at May 18, 2007 7:50 PM

Thanks to Robert and everyone for this.
I have experienced all of it.

Another thing which I have also experienced is that muslim posters go to great lengths to explain that they know more about Christianity and Judaism than any one else.Complete Biblical scholars no less!!

This is a lot harder for me to refute as I am not an expert on either. However, and thankfully, there is almost always some other non-muslim poster who comes in to help refute their disgusting, and obviously muslim interpretations of the Bible.

They also frequently say they are semites, therefore cannot be anti-Jewish cos Jews are also semites. But they HATE zionists! Thus making it political and not religious.(I think someone else covered that in slightly different words).

Hope no one minds but I have summarised the input from above for everyone's convenience. Acknowlegement to all:

1. He's taking verses out of context
2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot
3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic
4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials
5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand
6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?
7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?
8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims
9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics

10. He's lying
11. If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed
12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited
13. He's a Jew/Zionist neocon/neoliberal imperialist/Crusader!

Posted by: Gramfan at May 18, 2007 7:58 PM

Unfortunately, the Islamo-fascists do not play by the same rules. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not apply, in their minds, to infidels.

I was just on the "Terrorism Awareness" website, and read the interview between Wafa Sultan and Bin Muhammed; the latter boldly claimed that there are only a few innocents in the United States (as I interpreted it), hundreds, MAYBE thousands. As this man castigated America for its atrocities, he, like other "jihad apologists" downplay the senseless murder and brutality against non-Muslims and Muslims alike, as long it achieves their own absolutely sick, senseless, and SELFISH goals...

Posted by: Todd Anthony at May 18, 2007 7:59 PM

1. He's taking verses out of context

Then please tell us precisely what the context is. Read the context for us. Allegation #1 is worthless without specifics.

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot

Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a race, but come in ALL colors. They are brown in the Middle East, yellow in China and Indonesia, white in Bosnia and Kosovo, black in Nigeria and Somalia, and all of the above in America. Because Islam is not a race, an irrational animosity toward muslims cannot be reasonably defined as racism.

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic

Does one need to know German in order to understand Marx's Communist Manifesto? Ancient Greek to understand Aristotle or Plato?

Yes, it's true that in translating from one language to another, words will change shades of meaning. But this is true for ANY combination of two languages, and no more so when one of them is Arabic.

If Mr. Spencer or anyone else has not understood or translated an Arabic word properly, please point out the correct meaning of the word.

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand

As muslims themselves assert, Muhammad was himself a mortal man, just like all others. His mind would have been no more complex than that of any other reasonably intelligent human.

If the Qur'an is too complex to understand, then so is much of the Bible, along with the scriptures of Hinduism and Buddhism.

If the failure to understand the complexity of a certain thing carries a moral prohibition on speaking about it, then Christians can never speak about the God they believe in, since the existence of one God as three separate divine Persons is itself beyond human comprehension.

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?
7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?

While the Crusades were indeed part of the story of Christianity, nowhere in the New Testament can their justification be found. Christ never told his subjects to form an army and conquer. On the other hand, one can find in the Qur'an verses that at least appear to justify violence toward non-muslims.

The violent verses in the Bible refer to things that happened in the past. Yes, God did at times tell the ancient Israelites to slaughter Canaanites, but NOWHERE are Christians commanded to do these things today.

The Bible says "Thou shall not murder". This commandment applies to all humanity. In other words, it is wrong to kill an innocent human, regardless of his/her race or religion. Where is the equivalent commandment in the Qur'an?

Ultimately these two objections are irrelevant. Pointing out the crusades or violent Biblical verses is similar to the juvenile act of defending yourself from an accusation by merely saying that "others did it, too."

9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics

And only Christians can address the tough topics of Christianity, only Jews can address the tough topics of Judaism, etc.

Hope that helps, Bob. Let me conclude with some Arabic I learned from Michelle Malkin's Hot Air.
Lan Astaslem. (I will not submit.)

Posted by: Bigfoot at May 18, 2007 8:09 PM

#next?:
"1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12 or 13. But my religion - Islam - will not allow me to discuss the Qur'an with a non-believer."

Posted by: L_Hogthrob at May 18, 2007 8:30 PM

It is impossible for a Muslim to be an expert in Islam, for a believer in Islam is blinded to its reality. To be a true expert in Islam, you must be able to recognize the outright lies that Mohammad told along with the lies that he wrapped in a little bit of truth. Only an Infidel can truly understand Islam as only a waking man can understand sleep and only a living man can understand death, so only one who is not blinded by Islam can understand it.

Posted by: IAmFree at May 18, 2007 8:34 PM

Often times #7 and #2 get conflated, i.e. if you ask, "How are the verses being taken out of context?" they will respond, "bigots often take verses from the bible out of context..."

If this happens, use the following analogy: Thats like telling the judge that you are not guilty of the crime you are being accused of, because the defendant who saw the judge yesterday was found not guilty of the crime he was accused of.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at May 18, 2007 8:48 PM

This is a good sort of therapy i suppose,but the real issue seems to be getting the debates with these contortionists in the first place.

They have no desire for the truth about islam to be outed.

Perhaps a program where someone that reads arabic "outing "the religion of peace,in it's true form.

Somehow throwing in the fact that the "religion of peace" will kill any muslim for converting away from it is a good punch in the nose for islam.

How can they defend this?Except with an outright lie.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at May 18, 2007 9:02 PM

It is always interesting to see which posts get the hits in comments. Marisol can post any number of things and few respond. Mr. Fitzgerald can post Oxford type meanderings and few respond. Mr. Spencer posts one on him being attacked and the posts roll in with no answers in dealing with the Isalmic accusers lurking on Amazon.

If a Muslim believes the Koran, then they must believe that an angel dictated all to the prophet. How then being angelic language which only the prophet could hear can they as simple Arabic speaking individuals give meaning nor challenge the words of angels unless they speak that dialect.

A Muslim is caught in their own lack. They are not adopted into the Spiritual family of God, but are to be judged by God. They have no intimate knowledge of God as they require an angelic messenger to inform them, but in not speaking the angelic language they can not be certain they are capable of understanding what the prophet or the Mahdi would understand.
The koran is a spiritual book and their being human and nothing more.....a Muslim can not ever understand the full meaning of the angelic verse for they only read the words.

This is why a Muslim attacks Robert Spencer or as he terms jihad apologists question him as their reference sources condemn them and they are uncomfortable in themselves not being able to refute Robert Spencer....and they wonder deep down without the knowledge of God or angels that perhaps Mr. Spencer is actually correct.

That is what makes a Muslim uncomfortable...and that is how one answers a Muslim in their human frailty.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 18, 2007 9:28 PM

Last year some posters at JW, responding to a post by Hugh on the topic of a Handbook for Infidel Debaters, compiled a long list of typical Islam apologetics. Infidel Pride, above, has mentioned this project and provided the link for the introduction. Here is the Index of Islamic Apologist Claims to be Refuted. A project of roughly the same kind has been posted at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ , scroll down a little to the Myths of Islam and Games Muslims play.

Looking at Robert's list, it appears to me that these are mostly the superficial sound-bite types of claims that are used in the mainstream media. Some of them have been addressed at the above link.

1. He's taking verses out of context

Addressed at the above link. Comments: This is most often presented as the mere name of an argument, rather than an argument with any substance to show how the Islam critic has quoted material inappropriately. In fact knowing the context of the Koranic verses requires quite a bit of study because the Koran itself provides very little historical or situational context. (Some tafsirs, such as Ibn Kathir's, provide contextual information from the appropriate hadiths and parts of the sira). However, getting into the context of the Quranic verses leads to two main sources of material, namely Hadith and Sira. Once the apologist goes for those sources, they have opened the door for the critic to cite from those same sources, leading to the presentation of embarrassing, atrocious actions and words of Muhammad. As for textual context (i.e., the surrounding passage in which the verse is embedded), this also presents problems for the apologist, because the Koran contains a high percentage of verses that are hostile or antagonistic toward non-Muslims. Any verse you select will have a good chance of being embedded in a passage that is in some way hostile or threatening toward non-Muslims. Any Islam critic who has the time and the patience to do so should be willing to call the apologist's bluff on the "out of context claim." Once the critic has addressed the claim, he/she can then turn to the counterattack, where justified, charging the apologist with quoting out of context. (The counterattack is not a tu quoque fallacy if the critic has first addressed apologist's claim).

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot

Also on the above-linked Index, but not yet refuted. This one is just ad hominem, and in a proper debate would simply be dismissed out of hand. The problem is that the conditions for a proper debate rarely occur. Nevertheless, the Islam critic can respond to the apologist in this case by denying the claim directly, pointing out also that it is fallacy, and then providing the substance (or repeating and re-emphasizing it) to support whatever the specific criticism in question.

One could remind the apologist of the Quran's statements to the effect that Muslims should argue in a way that is better than the critic. At the very least, the apologist should be pressed to either show that the claims of the critic are false, or else withdraw the accusation.

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic

Addressed at the above-linked Index.

4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials

That's not a valid argument; it is a fallacy that is well-known to philosophers. The truth of the claim has nothing to do with the claimant's credentials. However, the fallacy is compelling because people know that expertise generally is important. Thus instead of taking the time to examine complicated and often ambiguous material, people make mental short-cuts or "cheating" by looking to see if the person has certain titles or credentials. In Robert's case, he certainly has plenty of expertise. As for those of us Islam critics who don't have the expertise, we need to do much research, making sure our claims are solid before entering a debate.

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand.

This looks roughly like a "poisoning the well" fallacy, like an ad hominem, and in some variations an appeal to identity politics (basically it comes down to a primitive supremacism: 'You must be Muslim or else your opinion is worthless'). Indeed, the Koran makes such statements that the disbelievers lack the intellect to appreciate the wisdom and the moral goodness of Muhammad's message. One person at the Young Muslims thread linked above even cited the Koran in precisely this capacity. Allah/Muhammad makes elementary logical fallacies, and his followers repeat them. Their accusation is a diversion away from the substance of whatever issue is at hand.

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?

Rebuttal: Tu quoque fallacy; inadmissible. Unfortunately, the apologist and the audience is not likely to be satisfied with that minimalist rebuttal. The Islam critic must go through and explain (a) how the Crusades were not simply aggressive holy wars against Muslims but had some prior provocations; (b) how the New Testament does not permit violent imperialistic warfare in the name of religion; (c) how several of Islam's early expansions [including under Muhammad and the early caliphs] were often aggressive holy wars without credible prior provocations; and (d) how the Koran and Hadith does call for violent imperialistic warfare explicitly in the name of religion (9:5, 9:29)

7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?

I suspect Robert will have much to say about this one and #6 in his forthcoming book. In the meantime, our friends at TROP have posted this rebuttal: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm

8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims

The onus is on the apologist to show how the objectionable Muslims in question (e.g., those who call for death to apostates, those who stone adulterers, those who own slaves, those who wage aggressive jihad, etc.) have deviated from a plausible reading of the Islamic texts. Apologists often fail to do this. The Islam critic can cite the consistency between the objectionable Muslims' actions and the appropriate text source. It is useful in this case to have actual quotes or other evidence from the objectionable Muslims in question to show that it is their interpretation, not the critic's, which links their actions with the Islamic texts.

9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics

Again this is ad hominem, poisoning the well, perhaps an expression of Muslim supremacism, not a valid argument. But this claim does give the Islam critic to put the apologist on the spot to demonstrate his/her understanding of some tough topic, like, oh, say, rape of non-Muslim female captives and slaves.

10. He's lying

The claim requires proof: The apologist must show that the Islam critic is knowingly making false statements with the intention to deceive.

11. If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed

This sounds like a cop-out. Ridicule is generally bad form, but is not a major, substantive issue. Again it is a claim that requires supportive evidence. The apologist must show that the Islam critic was shown wrong.

12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited

As Robert says, show evidence for these extraordinary claims.

Summary: When it comes right down to it, apologists simply don't have the goods. They don't often use valid forms of argument and they don't often present much evidence to support their claims. Instead they rely more on name-calling, false accusation, and distractions.

One thing I've found is that if you look closely and critically at what apologists are claiming, and you follow up to investigate, it turns out that they are quite often either mistaken or bluffing, trying to make the very most out of a weak hand.

I also find that apologists are often emboldened when people fail to respond with the appropriate arguments and evidence, so off they go to another conversation thinking that their beliefs are sound because, after all, they have gone unchallenged.

Many apologists (e.g., trolls) are intending little more than to cause mischief and tie up Islam critics for a long time by hurling one unsubstantiated allegation after another. There are many cases of this on the JW threads. In these cases it is more prudent, I think, to simply ask them to provide evidence for whatever claim they've made. If they fail to do so, I try to ignore them. The types of exchanges they wish to provoke aren't worth the trouble, especially when there are some (rare) knowledgeable apologists who are willing to argue in detail and substance. It is with those rare exceptions that we should be honing our debating skills. We need to be able to address the claims of the best apologists.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 18, 2007 9:42 PM

OT

An interview with Bruce Bawer author of While Europe Slept.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05182007/watch2.html

Posted by: Borg at May 18, 2007 10:25 PM

If there is anyone reading this thread who has not read the debates Ali Sina has had on FFI, please do so as soon as you can. Apart from every other serious consideration about them, they are a sheer pleasure to read.

Posted by: Moonzoo at May 18, 2007 10:53 PM

why is islamic games conducted in public school???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

http://www.icnanj.org/

Posted by: Desi at May 18, 2007 10:55 PM

why is islamic games conducted in public school???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

http://www.icnanj.org/

Posted by: Desi at May 18, 2007 10:55 PM

First of all, there has been lot of hard work, research, prose, etc. posted here...it's made for some entertaining and insightful reading...

I think a problem I have is that the dangers posted by Islamofascism are so incredibly brazen and transparent that even blind people should be able to see them. YET, with that said, the jihadists have a marriage of convenience with anyone that is anti-Bush or anti-conservative at this point. To the Left, the jihadists are nothing more than "freedom fighters."

I have to understand why NORMAL people cannot see the jihadists for what they are...usurpers and cold-blooded murderers...

http://toddanthony.squarespace.com

Posted by: Todd Anthony at May 18, 2007 11:03 PM

Robert, or Any other scholars out there. Can anyone answer the following points?

I've never quite understood how Muslims explain away the abrogated verses in the Koran.

If the Koran is an eternal book, always present in heaven with Allah, did it always have contradictory suras. Did it always have nice guy verses in the first part, and reverse itself in the second part?

Secondly, when this eternal book was transmitted to Moses and Jesus -- whose followers subsequently corrupted it, did it include verses about Moses when Moses received it, and did it include verses about Jesus when Jesus received it?

In other words, did both these men read about themselves upon receiving the Koran? If the Koran is eternal and unchanging, it seems to me they would have had to. They would have also have had to read about Mohammad and and all the events relating to his life, including the abrogated verses, and including Allah's attitude towards Christians and Jews.

Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the Koran was supposed to have been transmitted to the earlier Prophets, and was later corrupted.

If the old and new testaments were transmitted seperatly, were they also supposed to have been eternal and unchanging revelations from Allah, or is the Koran the ony holy book that has the distinction of being eternal?

As I've already said, maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the earlier Prophets were supposed to have received first editions of the Koran, and Mohammad was supposed to have received the last edition -- but always the same book.

Can anyone enlighten me on the above points?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: rational at May 18, 2007 11:13 PM

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic

Why is Arabic the only language that can’t be translated into another language? Is it magic of some sort? If so, what is the source and purpose of this magic? Is the purpose to keep the contents of the Quran secret from non-believers, and why does Islam need to keep secrets?

4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials

Considering Mr. Spencer’s voluminous writings on the topic of Islam which are yet to be refuted, how can anybody question his credentials? I would ask anybody who made such a claim what they would consider valid “credentials”, and what THEIR credentials are. If they say they’ve studied in various Islamic institutions: can Infidels study in those same institutions to obtain said credentials? If not, why not?

By that standard, only those wrapped in the thralls of Islam can make observations about it, thus eliminating any objective academic standards in any commentary on the subject. That sounds like fascism to me.

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand

For what good does it serve that Islam is too complex for Infidels to understand? Why is it too difficult for Infidels to understand, are we inferior in some way? Are Muslims or Arabs superior to the rest of us, and if so, how? If you are so superior, why can’t you refute anything I’ve said or written instead of hopelessly trying to assassinate my character? This doesn’t indicate superiority to me, although I don’t believe that you are inherently inferior to me in any way, as you seem to feel about me.

If what I’ve said about Islam isn’t accurate, and you’re implying it’s because I don’t have “credentials”, what does it say about you, who after all of these years haven’t been able to refute anything I’ve said? Your “credentials” don’t seem to be very useful to your argument, so why should I be interested in attaining similar credentials?

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?

This world is currently threatened by Jihad, not Crusades. The Crusades were ancient Europe’s solution for repelling Islamic fascism from Europe. Even if we don’t support the means, all free peoples should support the goal of apposing fascist ideologies.

It’s just like the many Americans who didn’t, and don’t, approve of the fact that we dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, yet we all agree our cause was just.

8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims

Specifically who are these Muslims you are referring to? Would you be willing to condemn them by name as apostates, here and now, and without equivocation? Let’s start with Bin Laden and then we’ll work down the list from there. No? Then they are real Muslims then? But I thought you just said that they weren’t!?!? You say you aren’t qualified to condemn them as apostates? I thought you claimed you had qualifications. What’s the matter; don’t you understand your own religion? You should look this stuff up; it’s all in there.

9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics

Why? Are Muslims superior to the rest of us in some way? Are they smarter or have extra chromosomes? Why is Islam the only religion on the planet that can’t be understood by unbelievers?

10. He's lying

So prove it. What is he lying about?

11. If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed.

If you’ve proven him wrong, let’s see the proof. I would suggest that the reason you’ve been ridiculed is because your arguments are ridiculous.

12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited

Similar to 10 and 11: If he’s been so thoroughly refuted, why keep your refutations to yourself. Let’s have at them; after all, that’s the way our society functions and that’s why were here today.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 18, 2007 11:18 PM

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand

I like this one the best. It's the loony telling the shrink that noone gets him.. noone can understand the voices in his head..

This is a bilion lunatics and noone can understand the voices of hatred and jihad inside their heads..

Saying hello from a sports bar uptown.. pitcher of beer and we'll see how it goes..

Oh I forgot.. they shoukld start using the argument that we are all a bunch of drunks.. I know not everyone n the list likes to drink but that shouldn't stop a true jihadist islamophile blogging away..

.. they only tell the truth as they know it..

They don't let facts get in the way.

Hey, does that sound like CONGRESS?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 18, 2007 11:24 PM

I'm reminded of the joke about the POWs telling jokes by just calling out a number. They've heard them so many times they just say, "28." Everybody laughs. Only this is real life and not funny.

Speaking of #4, I'm not a Jew, but I understand Nazi hatred of Jews. I'm not a Nazi either.

Then there is #3. Arabic must be the only language in the universe that cannot be properly translated, sort of like Navaho, only more difficult, huh?

Posted by: Pelayo at May 18, 2007 11:34 PM

rational - Wonderful questions. maybe you should email them.

And Mohammad answers questions of his followers in the koran. If it is eternal shouldn't it just be statements, not changed by his followers questions or by Mo's actions. Why didn't allah make sure that Mo learned how to read and write so that Mo could write down the words then and there. Why didn't allah speak directly to him as he did to Moses? Not use an angel. And why didn't it just get laid down somewhere in the open? Instead of written up by followers? Like the tablet Moses was given? Cast in stone for all to read? So that it couldn't be corrupted?

I have many of those types of questions myself but nowhere to get a strait answer.

I wish the islam 101 part of this site had a question and answer part.

Or maybe a weekly 'submit your question' column. Of course the whole thing makes no sense so there could be no sensible answers. Just more circular logic to explain the unexplainable.

Posted by: Borg at May 18, 2007 11:34 PM

1. He's taking verses out of context

I have a harder time with this one for the same reason that it’s impossible to make any headway when discussing any religious topic with anybody, (I’m an atheist). All I can think of is to demand specifics, which have so far not been forthcoming, so that they can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, the Islamists are smart enough not to play that game. Eventually though, people will catch on to this tactic and it will backfire on them. People will eventually realize, (hopefully), that the reason they can’t defend their statements about the supposed equality between Islam and Christianity is because they’ve been deliberately misinformed.

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot

A “phobia” is an irrational fear. So far all of my points have been dispassionate, objective observations about Islamic jurisprudence whereas you have only made grandiose claims about my character with no substance. I ask the audience, which of us sounds irrational?

Supposing for a moment that what I’ve said is true, there is nothing irrational about my fear of Islamism. We wouldn’t even be hear talking about this if it wasn’t for all of the violence taking place in the name of Allah all over the planet today as well as the past. If those aspect of Islam that lead to such activities were no longer practiced by so many, what would there be to discuss?

I'm looking forward to reading everybody elses comments on this thread.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 18, 2007 11:43 PM

1. He's taking verses out of context
2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot
3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic
4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials
5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand
6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?
7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?
8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims
9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics
10. He's lying
11. If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed
12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited

Muslims want to divert and cause the rest of us to doubt our beliefs and observations.

I do not need to consider whether taking versus are of context or not, nor do I need to understand Arabic at all. What I can surely understand is the volume of messages stated to infidels by "Muslims" themselves every day, who are citing the Koran

and instructions from Mohammud, such instructions like:

"kill Americans"
"kill Jews"
"wipe out Israel"
"death to America"

And I clearly understand Muslims calling for Muslims to come to jihad, to expel the occupiers, to pray in the houses of government for allah's wrath against Christians and Jews, for the fall of America and all it's allies.

And I clearly under understand Muslims like Dr. Ahmad Bahar (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council) who said:

"This is Islam, ...that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine Make us victorious over the infidel people Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don't leave even one." [PA TV, April 20, 2007]

And I clearly understand the TV News and Newspaper reports of Phiranah like Muslim violence all over the world against infidels and against themselves and I understand the pictures from UK and USA, for example, of Muslims holding signs quoting:

"England your 9/11 is coming"
"the crescent moon will fly over the white house"

I clearly understand flying imams setting up to sue the travelling public to perpetuate the victimization game.

And I clearly understand the 12% (84000) of Muslims polled in Canada who belive jihad is OK and it is OK to blow up parliament and OK to behead the Prime Minister and I don't need to believe "Those Muslims are not real Muslims."

And I clearly understand moderate Muslims who will not condemn the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Ql Queda, the Taliban even when explicitly asked about it.

And No, I don't need to understand Arabic and no I don't need to be a scholar of Islam, and no I don't need to read the Koran, and no I don't need to reflect on the Crusades from a time long past, nor refect on ancient "violent verses in the Bible", and I don't need to be "proven wrong on the Qur'an and Hadith", and I don't care if "The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand".

All of that is irrevelant. All I need to understand is what my eyes and ears show me each and every day, "today", and it ain't pretty.

Most of all, the Muslim apologists and defenders are irrevelent in their defence because of the obvious. Actions are indeed worth more than words.

Listen to the Muslims themselves. Watch their actions. It's not cloudy. That's Islam today and I don't care about yesterday and having a PhD wouldn't alter a thing.

No debate required.

Posted by: sounder at May 19, 2007 12:23 AM

This might be worth making a jihad bingo card to play with a friend. Watch the news and see who gets bingo first.

Posted by: non-redneck at May 19, 2007 12:38 AM

"1. He's taking the verses out of context"

Rebuttal:
1. Inspecting textual context of a verse in the Koran does not necessarily make that verse seem better; the issue must be investigated in each case.

2. Inspecting textual context in the Koran often turns up more bad verses.

3. Historical context (Hadith and Sira) makes the Koran look worse.

4. Skeptic's question: If context is so important, why didn't 'Allah' provide it in the Koran?

5. Apologists neglect to mention why so many contexts involve battles and violence. Those contexts arose while Mohammad pursued his goal of conquering all religions.

6. Many of the verses spell out policies that are not justified in any realistic context.

7. The Koran is supposed to contain universal, timeless principles.

8. Many Muslims today interpret present-day contexts as appropriate grounds for implementing the Koran's violent policies against "oppression".

9. Taking the whole textual and historical context of the Koran into account doesn't change the problems in mainstream Islam today.

http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/948/ShowThread.aspx

Posted by: Caroline at May 19, 2007 12:44 AM

rational wrote:
"As I've already said, maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the earlier Prophets were supposed to have received first editions of the Koran, and Mohammad was supposed to have received the last edition -- but always the same book."

Indeed. Irrefutible logic applied to an irrefutably illogical ideology...Islam...as put forth by an irrefutably morally flawed man...Muhammad.

The concept of "reforming Islam", although most needed, is unlikely at best. As rational alluded, the inherent supposed divinity of the biggest canonical Islamic text...the Qur'an... perceived as the direct immutable words of Allah, does provide a major obstacle to that endeavor, the current impact of the "moderate" Muslim, notwithstanding.

It is all so obvious. All that is left to do is to give Robert the "obligatory" thanks for alerting us all to the "inconvenient truth" of Islam, and to remain vigilant in the watch.

Choose your candidates wisely in 2008.

Posted by: awake at May 19, 2007 12:47 AM

"3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic"

Rebuttal:

1. Arabic is not especially difficult for translators to translate.

2. It is the meaning, the ideas, values, and goals expounded in the Koran that are important--not the surface forms of the words.

3. Most people don't know Arabic and never will, but the Koran is supposed to be a message to all humankind.

4. The Koran does not say it must be read or heard recited in Arabic.

5. Because the Koran is mostly in Classical Arabic, even Arabic-speaking people must rely on translations. [this point is currently under review]

6. Anyone learning Arabic is unlikely to come up with an interpretation that is more accurate than those provided by the professional translations available in one's native language.

7. Numerous professional translations generally show high concordance in translation (i.e., they match up well for most verses).

8. Where there are differences in translations of certain phrases or words, these often reflect ambiguities in the Koranic expression, not Arabic per se.

9. Because the Koran's exposition is vague even in Arabic, for understanding its meaning, knowing the extra-Koranic sources, such as tafsirs, Hadith, Sira, Judeo-Christian Bible, etc., is more important than knowing Arabic.

10. Hearing the Koran in Arabic in context, directly from Mohammad, failed to convince most of the people who listened to his recitation.

11. Some Arabic terms are worse-seeming than their translated counterparts, once they are understood.

12. The translation issue does not have any impact on Islam as it is actually practiced and interpreted by the mainstream. The major problems in Islam, to which the critic objects, remain unaffected by translation.

http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/953/ShowThread.aspx

Posted by: Caroline at May 19, 2007 12:47 AM

1. He's taking verses out of context

Of course not. This verse pertains to, etc., etc. as referenced in _______'s authoritative biography of Muhammad (The long version)
Am not, am not, am not! (The short version)

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot

Islam is not a race but has a lot to be phobic about.

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic

Then all the world's translators of the Quran and their publishers are committing fraud. Let's file a class-action lawsuit.

4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials

I have/he has read all the relevant sources and had books published. How many Muslims can say that?

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand

Claiming divine approval for legislating morality, warfare, plunder, slavery and assassination I/he understand(s); what's the complex part?

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?

Show me the part of the New Testament that says it's OK to rob and kill people.

7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?

Well those are bad too. Or are you saying you approve of them?

8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims.

Reply #1 They know their Quran and Hadith pretty well.

Reply #2 How do you know? Do "real" Muslims get a special ID card?

9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics

It's still a free country, so I'll address them too.

10. He's lying

You've just committed slander. May I have your name and address so I know where to have my lawyer send the paperwork?

11. If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed.

That's because you're taking those verses out of context [why not use #1 to your own advantage?].

12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited

So tell me about refutation #103; who did it and when?

Posted by: sceptico at May 19, 2007 12:48 AM

13. Critics of Islam cherry-pick the verses that make Islam look bad:

Rebuttal:

1. The very fact that there are verses that make Islam look bad is a problem for the apologist.

2. Even one bad statement in a modern treatise on ethics, such as the writer advocating that opponents be condemned to hell-fires and torture, would be met with alarm and disapproval. The Koran has hundreds of such statements.

3. There are lots of bad cherries to be picked! There are proportionately far more bad verses than good verses in the Koran.

4. Criticism by its very nature involves focussing on bad parts. This should not be dismissed as cherry-picking, which implies that such critical focus is inappropriate.

5. The alleged good verses that the critics allegedly overlook are not so good on closer inspection.

6. Even a single bad verse that lays down major policy on an important issue cannot be overlooked (e.g., 9:29).

http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/950/ShowThread.aspx

Posted by: Caroline at May 19, 2007 12:51 AM

14. Doesn't believe that every time a muezzin calls Muslims to prayer the devil breaks wind.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 19, 2007 1:14 AM

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand

Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allâh has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allâh's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment (Q2.6-7).

I love it. I tell you what, for all the inanities about Islam, the obvious falseness of it all, you gotta admit the doctrine of mind control is quite brilliant. We can study the Qur'an and the sunnah until we're blue in the face, and we'll never be able to tell a Muslim what's what because we can never understand anyway. How reassuring for them.

Posted by: Gnosis at May 19, 2007 1:42 AM

I’ve heard at least a few Muslims give the same excuse for refusing to condemn Bin Laden, (or alternate), as an apostate; being that they don’t have the authority. Sorry, they say, but there’s no Caliphate. No central authority that has that power. Next topic.

Why is that supposed to be our problem? If there is no unity among Muslims it is their responsibility to straighten the problem out amongst themselves and then hunt down Bin Laden and the rest. Barring that, since they are a danger to us and our way of life, it becomes incumbent upon us to fix the situation so at least they are no longer a threat. Since they have relinquished authority to resolve the problem, they shouldn’t complain when we take appropriate measures at some point in the future. They will of course, but they don’t have the right. The only way they earn that right is to do the job themselves.

And anyway, by the logic of the excuse above, if nobody has the authority to declare anybody else an apostate within Islam, then where do all of the apostates come from?

My contributions to this topic so far aren’t nearly as substantive as some of the other’s I’ve read above, (some excellent posts), but are geared more towards closing the loops in the circular arguments I’ve heard used by Islamic apologists.

P.S. I wish all of the comments in the comment sections were enumerated for reference.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 19, 2007 1:43 AM

I recently engaged a Muslim at Hannity who tried to tell me jihad could not be waged without the guidance of an amir or a Khalif. He couldn't provide any scriptural basis for the argument, but it seems to me that the absence of a Khalif is as good a reason to wage jihad - in order that one be re-established - as any.

It's just the old purposeful ambiguity - say anything to deflect or apologize for what Islam is and has done. We're too stupid to know the difference anyway, even when we do.

Posted by: Gnosis at May 19, 2007 1:53 AM

Your machine crashes because you use an Apple Macintosh and the Internet is still Wintel centric.

Posted by: payingattention at May 19, 2007 1:55 AM

Robert, or Any other scholars out there. Can anyone answer the following points?

I've never quite understood how Muslims explain away the abrogated verses in the Koran.

If the Koran is an eternal book, always present in heaven with Allah, did it always have contradictory suras. Did it always have nice guy verses in the first part, and reverse itself in the second part?

Secondly, when this eternal book was transmitted to Moses and Jesus -- whose followers subsequently corrupted it, did it include verses about Moses when Moses received it, and did it include verses about Jesus when Jesus received it?

In other words, did both these men read about themselves upon receiving the Koran? If the Koran is eternal and unchanging, it seems to me they would have had to. They would have also have had to read about Mohammad and and all the events relating to his life, including the abrogated verses, and including Allah's attitude towards Christians and Jews.

Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the Koran was supposed to have been transmitted to the earlier Prophets, and was later corrupted.

If the old and new testaments were transmitted seperatly, were they also supposed to have been eternal and unchanging revelations from Allah, or is the Koran the ony holy book that has the distinction of being eternal?

As I've already said, maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the earlier Prophets were supposed to have received first editions of the Koran, and Mohammad was supposed to have received the last edition -- but always the same book.

Can anyone enlighten me on the above points? I'd really like to know how Muslim theologians would answer these questions.

Thanks in advance.

Added question by BORG: "And Mohammad answers questions of his followers in the koran. If it is eternal shouldn't it just be statements, not changed by his followers questions or by Mo's actions.

Posted by: rational at May 19, 2007 2:06 AM

"And Mohammad answers questions of his followers in the koran. If it is eternal shouldn't it just be statements, not changed by his followers questions or by Mo's actions."

Good question. I've added it to my last post.

Posted by: rational at May 19, 2007 2:10 AM

Here is Carlyle's famous take on the Qur'an: "The Koran [Qur'an] is hard to understand because its a poorly plagiarized, literary pastiche cobbled together from hundreds of snippets of imperfectly remembered or imagined sayings."

Could any intelligent Infidel disagree?
Posted by: Hugh

I don't think ANYONE can disagree with that.. even a stupid 'kiffer' like me.. even after I've had a few pints.. pitchers whatever.. watching the Mets take down the evil Empire..

Life is good.. Life is even better without islam.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 19, 2007 2:16 AM

1. He's taking verses out of context
Spencer doesn't place much importance on his own understanding of the "correct" context. Rather he quotes the often violent and supremacist understandings promoted by the main schools of Islamic law and by many Muslims he specifically names. Shouldn't they, not Spencer, be argued with, since Spencer is only reporting what they say and how they find support in the Islamic texts? Don't kill the messenger.

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot
When you can't answer a man's arguments and facts, you resort to insult. And Islam is not a race.

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic
80% of the Muslim world does not know Arabic, and modern Arabic speakers often find the Quran's archaic Arabic unclear. The vast majority of Muslims must rely on translations. Do they therefore not understand the Quran? And today one can instantly access ten different English translations of every Quran verse (at www.quranbrowser.com), and see at which points all the translations are in agreement.

4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials
When you want to know for certain if a mathematical problem has been correctly worked out, you don't check the credentials of the person who worked it out. You check the solution. But since Spencer's opponents in open debate with him are incapable of convincingly demonstrating flaws in his arguments, resort is had to talking about side-issues like credentials.

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand.
Spencer does not pretend to "understand Islam" in some complete way. He does report the explanations of Islam given by many Islamic scholars and many Muslims.

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?
The Crusades were a response to several centuries of Islamic military conquest of vast regions of former Christendom.

7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?
The central figure depicted in the New Testament is generally considered a paragon of non-violence, and even if this were in doubt, we don't see groups today citing the New Testament as justification for violence against unbelievers. But all over the world today we do see groups engaging in terror and citing Quran verses and Muhammad's example as justifications. (Scroll near the bottom of www.thereligionofpeace.com for a daily tally of Islamically-inspired violence in many countries around the world.) As for the Old Testament, the violence there is directed toward specifically named historical peoples. By contrast, in the Quran, especially the chapters that in many Muslim minds have the last word because they were revealed latest (esp. chapter 9), there are open-ended calls to violence till the end of time against the unbeliever.

8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims
Spencer does not pretend to know what a "real" Muslim is. Spencer concerns himself with reporting on specific instances of Muslim support for violent and supremacist interpretions of Islamic texts. Go argue with those Muslims, not with Spencer. And find out why Islamic texts are so prone to violent "misinterpretations."

9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics
Spencer doesn't place much if any importance on his own approach to the "tough topics." Mainly he reports on the way many Muslims worldwide address tough topics. You don't really object to what Spencer tells us (since so many Muslims repeatedly say the very same, and you so rarely complain to them) but to the fact that Spencer does not approve of Islam's and Muhammad's violent, supremacist aspects.

10. He's lying
Point to flaws in his facts and arguments and citations. Resorting to insult only reveals the poverty of your arguments.

11. If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed
Yes, a few of the commenters who visit Spencer's site will not give you a fair hearing, but Spencer himself will. So why not challenge Spencer to argument? Is it because you grasp, in the back of your mind, that you will lose?

Reformist Muslims will only have a chance of success if they openly acknowledge and confront the extreme elements of the Quran and Islam rather than trying to sweep those elements under the rug while attacking Spencer, who is just a messenger.

Posted by: traeh at May 19, 2007 2:26 AM

Rational

You are being too rational about this. You forget - this is Islam.

Caroline

Thanks for reproducing these references.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 19, 2007 2:31 AM

Refutin' on a Friday afternoon

Posted by: traeh at May 19, 2007 2:44 AM

It should be noted that Qur'anic exegesis literally requires that you cherry pick the verses, because of the concept of naskh - abrogation - and the general chronology of the surahs (this chronology is Noldeke's as cited in The Sword of the Prophet - note that it lists surah 5 as the final surah, whereas RS says it's probably surah 9, which is why I refer to it as a general chronology: no one knows exactly).

But there is no doubt that, fundamentally, peaceful and violent verses do not contradict each other, and the peaceful verses almost exclusively appear in the Meccan surahs (even the 'no compulsion' verse was revealed in the very early Medinan period), and are later abrogated by the later verses - the two final surahs, 9 and 5 (or 5 and 9), being the most violent and hateful in the Qur'an.

And this isn't open for discussion, fundamentally, because the Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allâh (Q10.67). No one can seriously claim that the Bible was written by God. Only fallible men who were supposedly divinely inspired.

Was that given as a talking point already?

13. But what about the Crusades?!

14. But what about the violence in the Old Testament?!

Posted by: Gnosis at May 19, 2007 2:51 AM

I always try to preface my comments with this:

Oh and let me already state what the responses are going to be.. 1 - Taking it out of context 2 - Using a bad translation 3 - English doesnt have the same meaning as Arabic 4 - (My favorite) Billy did it too!!! (Comparing to other religions... this tactic is designed to prevent Islam from being discussed)

I found that they're less likey to engage in that pattern if they're already called out before they get a chance to. If anything, the Left hates it when their automaton-like reactions are known ahead of time.

(my point wasn't to compare my list with the list here... but to point out that I annouce to the other readers the robot-like response they should expect to see)

Posted by: Vince at May 19, 2007 3:05 AM

Gnosis said

He couldn't provide any scriptural basis for the argument, but it seems to me that the absence of a Khalif is as good a reason to wage jihad - in order that one be re-established - as any.

Defensive jihad must be undertaken by all Muslims everywhere whenever the infidels attack a Muslim nation. This is the significance of Muslim victimhood; by pointing to "Palestine" or Chechnya or Iraq or etc., they are using it as a recruiting tool to make it mandatory on Muslims to join the battle. If one is an observant Muslim, the clear mandate from Allah to become violent must be difficult to resist.

Offensive jihad can only be called by a caliph. The last caliphate ended with the destruction of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Hence the significance of the large number of people claiming today to be the rightful heir to the caliphate. If and when one of these claimants is accepted by the majority of Muslims as the "true" caliph, a new phase of the jihad can begin.

As you say, in their mind they are justified to use force to establish the right for them to use force. It is wonderfully self-fullfilling circular logic.

Posted by: special_guest at May 19, 2007 3:14 AM

Islam was a brilliant religious/tactical strategy on Mohammad’s part, IMO. There are plenty of peaceful verses at the start to confuse the enemy, while the framework of abrogation was built to make sure that Muslims knew the truth. I’m not as knowledgeable on this topic as others here, (I just consider myself informed), but probably abrogation was considered a secret of the faith for strategic reasons. It might also explain why the Quran isn’t in chronological order… to camouflage it so it appears more like a typical holy book of the period, with the violence interspersed amongst the peaceful, rather than the peaceful leading to the violence as it actually is.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 19, 2007 3:26 AM

Anyone have trouble reading the Quran? It becomes significantly clearer if one reads in the chronological order rather than in the order in which the chapters are physically bound up together in the book. By now many know the chapters are bound together starting with the longest chapter, following by the next longest, and so on, ending with the shortest chapter. That quantitative ordering quite scrambles the chronological order.

One way to find out how to follow the chronological order, is to get hold of The Religion of Peace; Islam's War Against the World, an excellent book Robert Spencer is now advertising on Jihad Watch. The book has in an appendix the chronological order of verses as that order is shown in the standard Egyptian edition of the Quran. That's the chronological order in which most Muslims presumably trust.

Posted by: traeh at May 19, 2007 3:29 AM

Hugh said

Have the sheet with the prepared list of objections as people enter the hall.

For those who answer Hugh's call for us infidels to attend the inter-faith meetings with Muslims, this should be fard 'ayn (obligatory).

Luculent. Simply luculent.

Posted by: special_guest at May 19, 2007 3:30 AM

The chronological order of the Quran should be on the handout as well.

(Sorry if somebody already mentioned this.)

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 19, 2007 3:46 AM

...My post just above was in response to Trash's comment.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 19, 2007 3:48 AM

FloatingRock:

Maybe you are right that Islam was just a religious tactical strategy on Muhammad's part. But in reading the Quran, I sometimes get the impression more is going on. I am entertaining the hypothesis that Muhammad was inspired by some kind of retrograde "angel" (i.e., by the "demonic") because I'm not sure someone could have come up with the Quran merely as a tactic. It's got a certain poetry and passion that, though I don't find them at all persuasive as the verbatim word of God, I do find might be "inspired" by a degree of poetic, demonic force. Not so many centuries ago, the presence of poetic power often was perceived as indicating the presence of a spiritual being, or "muse," outside the personal ego of the poet, inspiring him. But given Muhammad's reported fits, his suicidal beginnings, and so on, I suspect some sort of transpersonal inspiration operating here, not just a fully conscious tactic. But I'm like you: still with plenty to learn about Islam.

If I'm not mistaken, Robert Spencer speaks of the doctrine of abrogration as appearing in two Quran verses that Allah revealed to Muhammad after Muhammad had been accused by opponents of producing contradictory Quran verses. To justify these contradictions, "Allah" explains in chapter 2, verse 106:

If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar. Did you not know that Allah has power over all things?

I've wondered myself if the non-chron order of the Quran chapters was a form of camouflage -- somewhat as in history the crazily arranged and unnamed streets of some towns, and the lack of public maps, made those towns relatively difficult to invade -- but I can imagine many other reasons for the non-chron order. Ibn Warraq has a good book on the origins of the Quran, and I wonder if he touches on the question...

Posted by: traeh at May 19, 2007 3:59 AM

1. He's taking verses out of context

So do the extremists and al-Qaeda in your midst, you say. Your religion would do better to instruct contextual correctness with them, not Spencer.

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot

You hardly ever hear people who criticize Christianity referred to as Christianophobes/racists/bigots. You hardly ever hear people who criticize Hinduism referred to as Hinduphobes/racists/bigots. You hardly ever hear people who criticize Buddhism referred to as Buddhistphobes/racists/bigots. You hardly ever hear people who criticize atheism referred to as atheistphobes/racists/bigots. You hardly ever hear people who criticize polytheism referred to as polytheophobes/racists/bigots. You hardly ever hear people who criticize America referred to as Americanophobes/racists/bigots. So whassup, Islam? Can't a "perfect" religion take the heat of criticism?

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic

But most Muslims don't understand Arabic either. A lot of them are illiterate in their own language. So how do they understand the Qur'an? Besides, you say Islam is the easy way. So easy that I have to learn another language to understand it? Is Arabic God's language? If Allah is so almighty and wants everyone to know his ways, why would he communicate to man in such cryptic ways? Why does he limit himself to one language? Even so, didn't Allah himself say "we made the Quran easy"?

4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials

Why does one need to be an expert with credentials, when you say that Islam is easy?

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand

So again, why do you say Islam is the easy way and not complex?

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?

And this proves what? To atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, and all non-Muslim-or-Christian, it proves nothing....such a retort, in fact, simply reinforces their negative views on Islam and lumps it together with Christianity. Besides, you're essentially equating the sins of your "perfect" Islam to the sins of a "corrupt" Christianity. You really want to do that? Try again.

7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?

And what about them? You think the Bible is corrupt anyway. Are you suggesting the "perfect" Quran got corrupted, too? And again, to atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, and all non-Muslim-or-Christian, it proves nothing....such a retort, in fact, simply reinforces their negative views on Islam and lumps it together with Christianity. Try again.

8. Those Muslims are not "real" Muslims

And those crusading Christians were not "real" Christians. And those oppressive Jews are not "real" Jews. And those violent Hindus are not "real" Hindus. And those Abu Ghraib Americans were not "real" Americans. A wash. Try again.

9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics

Like the extremists and al-Qaeda in your midst? But then again....you keep saying that Islam is the easy way!

Posted by: yadayada at May 19, 2007 5:41 AM

Trash;

I’m not sure I meant to suggest it was an intentional strategy on Mohammad’s part, (maybe), just that for somebody with his ambitions he put together a powerful mix of religion and militancy, along with enough subterfuge to allow for surprisingly affective plausible deniability. He co-opted his opponent’s religious figures and claimed them as his own. Even the incentive system is geared up for warfare. The only sure way to paradise is as a martyr and once there, those things forbidden on Earth are encouraged.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 19, 2007 6:33 AM

When I am drawn, ad nauseum into arguments with my fellow students about Islam, they always, always use some of the above. The thing is, it's not really malice, but simply a conditioned response. I usually avoid this by simply saying the following:

"Look, I could go on and on, citing example after example, but this wouldn't get us anywhere. So, instead, I am going to write down some words and phrases which, when you google them, will give you some idea on what I am basing my opinions. These are just some pretty basic terms, which are vital if we are going to have a civilised, informed discussion:

1. Taqqiya
2. Kitman
3. Jihad
4. Sharia
5. Dhimmi
6. Da'wa
7. Aisha
8. Mohammed Amin al-Husayni
9. Sayyid Qutb
10. Hakamiyya

And, if you're strapped for time, just google the following short story, and read the follow up article:

"The Century War"., by Dan Simmons

It tends to work.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at May 19, 2007 6:33 AM

There appears to be some overlap amongst the topics listed by Robert, e.g.,

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand
9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics

Those seem to go together. They are reducible to "You must be Muslim to discuss Islam."

Here's a few notes, some gleaned from posts above and others I thought of in response to 5 and 9.

This is the classic Islamic supremacist position whereby the dhimmis were not permitted to discuss Islam in a negative way. Such negative expressions were considered to be violations of the dhimma "protection" scheme, and consequently such offending dhimmis could be punished according to 5:33 (including execution). The strong animosity of even 'moderate' Muslims in response to criticisms of Islam is traceable to these Islamic text-based traditions.

This apparent "rule" is flouted conveniently by many of the same apologists in relation to Islam-promoters like Karen Armstrong. Again, that simply shows the application of a consistent principle that involves blocking negative statements about Islam while only positive statements it can be allowed. In other words, 5 and 9 are reducible to expressions of Islamic supremacism.

An observation: CAIR-CAN's "A journalist's guide to Islamic religious practices". 2nd canadian edition, 2003. This short booklet instructs journalists in no uncertain terms that they should not consult non-Muslims for information about Islam. (The booklet also brazenly lies, claiming that "Islam literally means peace." This Islamic supremacist propaganda was funded by a grant from the Canadian government).

-Quran in many places says it is "clear", and [as poster yadayada cites], “easy” Sura 54, verses 17, 22, 32, and 40. --a very versatile rebuttal, yadayada!

-If non-Muslims can't understand it, then there is no basis for anyone to become Muslim (Muslims have an answer for this (49:13-17) which is that people must submit first before the faith enters their hearts, but that raises the same question: why submit to something that is not understood?

-then apostates have “lost” their understanding of Islam. How exactly does that happen?

-please provide an example of this alleged complexity. Provide evidence for the claim.

-practically irrelevant: Non-Muslims can recognize the injustices and the absurdities of Muslims today, in practice.

4. He's not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials

Ask the apologist-what are the credentials needed for Muslims to accept Islam as a reasonable and moral doctrine?

-would the apologist be satisfied in hearing the same conclusions reached by someone with what are deemed by the apologist to be acceptable credentials? (This is distinct from the you must be Muslim claim). E.g., do Qaradawi and Sistani not understand Islam?

-please demonstrate how a person with “credentials” would arrive at a different conclusion (i.e., support your claim with evidence).

Lastly, rational, your skeptical questions got me thinking...

How much time elapsed between the point at which the scriptures were corrupted and the time at which Muhammad revealed most or all of the Quran? What happened to the People of the Book during that time…did Allah accept them?

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 19, 2007 7:11 AM

Khaybar Oasis,

But the scriptures weren't corrupted, for "...there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah" (Q6;34).

Now what? :)

Posted by: Godefroi at May 19, 2007 9:36 AM

Without reading 95 responses before commenting, this is my reaction: If you go to the asylum to argue with the inmates, be prepared not to encounter rational thought, logic, or adherence to the facts.

What you will find is defensiveness, denial, projection, wishful or magical thinking and a wealth of rationalizations which have nothing to do with the facts you are trying to establish as the truth.

Our government is wasting valuable time and resources trying to modify and mollify those who, as good practitioners of the ROP (moderate MSM)embrace Sharia Law as the locus of their existence and believe that it should be the highest authority in the land.

Only someone with the patience of a saint and the constitution of Patton, could stand up to the continual bashing that Mr. Spencer undergoes on a daily basis in the waging the battle against ignorance about Islam.

Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at May 19, 2007 9:46 AM

"If there is no unity among Muslims it is their responsibility to straighten the problem out amongst themselves and then hunt down Bin Laden and the rest."
From a post by Floating Rock

If there is no unity among Muslims then why do they perceive OUR attempts to hunt down Bin Laden and his ilk as an attack on Islam? Why is any condemnation of terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam also an attack on Islam itself?

There may be no responsibility among Muslims but there is definitely unity - against the other. But if 'the other' ever again united against Islam it would be the most horrific violation of human rights known to man.

If the Koran can only be understood in Arabic then what does that say about the many non-Arab Muslims who don't know a word of Arabic (except for 'jihad', that is)?
Many of them recite the Koran but it is gibberish to them. Any one of us could recite a collection of sounds. Knowing the sounds doesn't confer understanding. Why is it that so many Muslims were "shocked, shocked" at the violence found in the Koran, which they discovered only when it was read to them in ENGLISH.

Posted by: PMK at May 19, 2007 10:12 AM

"It's a weak hadith"

Posted by: Silvester at May 19, 2007 10:14 AM

Why is it any more difficult to understand nuances in Arabic than English? I have dealt with Arabic terrorists who experssed totally incorrect perceptions about America. Was this the case because they did not understand English? If there is so much misunderstanding would it not be better to peacefully discuss differences rather than kill one another or is it that all the Muslim apologists are merely disingenuous?

Posted by: RNL at May 19, 2007 10:56 AM

"I have many of those types of questions myself but nowhere to get a strait answer.
I wish the islam 101 part of this site had a question and answer part.
Or maybe a weekly 'submit your question' column. Of course the whole thing makes no sense so there could be no sensible answers. Just more circular logic to explain the unexplainable.

Borg,

Yes, I wish there was some place one could ask and get an answer to my questions in my earlier post.

I was hoping to get an Islamic perspective. Surely Muslims must have asked the same questions themselves. I'd be interested in knowing how they resolved them -- even an explanation would do.
This would be a wonderful opportunity for some Muslim to try to convert me -- maybe even try to recruit me as a Jihadist.

Posted by: rational at May 19, 2007 11:29 AM

Lame Cherry wrote: "It is always interesting to see which posts get the hits in comments. Marisol can post any number of things and few respond. Mr. Fitzgerald can post Oxford type meanderings and few respond. Mr. Spencer posts one on him being attacked and the posts roll in with no answers in dealing with the Isalmic accusers lurking on Amazon."

Marisol, Hugh, Anne, and others at this site make huge contributions to our understanding of the Islamic ideology that is assaulting our civilization. But Robert Spencer is the one in the public arena. At this site, in his books, and elsewhere he has shown the utmost patience and grace in helping us educate ourselves about this subject, in order to gain, in the words of Hugh Fitzgerald, an "inobnubilated grasp" of Islamic ideology as it affects our world.

But Robert is in the lead ship, carrying the unit ensign. If he were a pilot, his call sign would be "Flak Bait." When he is attacked with slanderous diatribes, at Amazon or elsewhere, we need to return his loyalty and patience with our own.

That includes posting calm and thoughtful refutations here, every day if needed, to insure that any passerby at this site, perhaps investigating this or that charge or accusation he heard about this "Islamophobic person Robert Spencer," comes away with the real story, and perhaps a piqued interest in this vital subject.

Hugh and Marisol do the same, every day, with class and insight, and for that, I am supremely grateful. I am grateful that there are still such honorable and diligent citizens such as they, and as well the many concerned and thoughtful posters who come here, fighting the good fight each day against perilous ignorance in a perious age, and against the creeping dhimmitude that threatens our freedoms and indeed freedom across the globe.

Sorry to be so sappy, but that is how I genuinely feel on the subject.

Posted by: Stendec at May 19, 2007 1:00 PM

Somebody mentioned weak hadiths. This is always a good one, particularly in the cases of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak in Sirat Rasul Allah. Apologists claim the chains of narration are weak.

But these are the same people who claim jihad warfare is the "lower" jihad, while striving against the desires of the self is the "higher" jihad. Imam Bayhaqi, the jurisprudent imam, hadith master, authority in the foundations of doctrine (usuli), scrupulous and devoted ascetic, defender of the School both in its foundations and its branches, one of the mountains of Islamic knowledge, ruled that, though this concept is based on a hadith, it's chain of narration (isnad) is weak. The Mujtahid Imam Al Suyuti comes to the same conclusion, and the collector of the hadith in question, Yahya ibn al 'Ala', was accused of forgery. The Mujtahidun also point out that the concept of "lower" jihad is contradictory to God's Word:

Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with their wealth and their lives. Allâh has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allâh has promised good, but Allâh has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward: Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. And Allâh is Ever Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (Q4.95-96)

Posted by: Gnosis at May 19, 2007 3:08 PM

#1 He's taking verses out of context. #3 He doesn’t know Arabic…#4 He has no credentials… #5 Islam is too mysterious/complicated for infidels to understand. #9 Only Muslims can address the tough topics.

So, the verses that instruct Muslims; to kill apostates, beat disobedient wives, marry (up to four) children, stone adulterers to death, amputate hands of thieves, that the greatest rewards in heaven are given to those who fight and die for Allah, that the sun travels through the sky in an angel-powered chariot then sets in a muddy swamp, that the creator of the universe found it then important to condone Muhammad’s marriage to his daughter in law, etc. etc. SHOULD ALL BE IGNORED BECAUSE A PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATE CONTEXT EXISTS? But isn’t the Qur’an the perfect, literal word of God for all men for all time? Do these problematic verses take on different meanings in Arabic? Who then, has the “credentials” to adequately explain these discrepancies?

#2 He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot. #9 He’s lying.
Robert uses the texts most widely accepted by Muslims to be accurate, and he provides footnotes so anyone can crosscheck and verify the accuracy from the sources. Robert does not interpret the Qur’an; he examines the interpretations that Muslims give to justify their actions.

#11 If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed. #12 He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited.
Specify, and/or document ANY instance where Spencer has ever been proven wrong…(If that’s possible), then show any ridicule (non-existent). Lord help anyone who tries to out-debate Robert, as he is impeccably informed/knowledgeable, stays focused on the issues, and avoids the logic fallacies so commonly used by his adversaries; especially Ad Hominem, Straw-man and Red Herrings. Reading Robert's retorts (and de-Fisking) is like a master-class in debating skills.

Posted by: Xero G at May 19, 2007 6:26 PM

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?

From a Jewish perspective, the Crusades were a disaster. The First Crusade, as it traveled down the Rhine valley, killed about 100,000 Jews and wiped out hundreds of communities. Once they got to Jerusalem, they killed Jew and Muslim alike. So I'm hardly a fan of the Crusades. However, the Crusades ultimately were a defensive reaction to centuries of Muslim military action threatening Europe, including the conquest of the Iberian peninsula.

7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?

The Israelites are commanded to wage war against specific nations for specific purposes. There is nothing in the Hebrew bible that even suggests or even encourages Jewish hegemony over any other geographic region than the Land of Israel. More to the point, the Quran obligates, Muslims to spread Islam worldwide, establish shariah law in areas under Muslim control and permits military action to do so. There is nothing analogous to this in the Hebrew bible. The Israelites were commanded to conquer Canaan, the land promised to Abraham and his family, not the whole world.

Ironically, of the three Abrahamic faiths, only Judaism is non-exclusivist. Islam and Christianity both teach that only members of their faith community will pass muster with God. Judaism recognizes that the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come.

Posted by: Johan Amedeus Metesky at May 19, 2007 8:08 PM

rational-

Another question I need answered is this-

Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allâh has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allâh's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment (Q2.6-7).

Why would allah make people who could not follow his rules? Why did he put a 'seal on their hearts and on their hearings' so they could not understand if he really WANTS them to understand? A strange thing to do is it not?

And if allah controls ALL things why not just make people born understanding? Instinctively? If allah can do all things surely he can do that also. Why create people just to torment them? Sounds evil to me. And if allah controls all things, even the leaf cannot blow if allah does not will it, why would he put a seal to prevent understanding? Does he like to torment his creations? Why does he need slaves if he can control all things himself?

I have to wonder if people who follow islam would be the same people who can be hypnotized easily by rhythmic words.

Posted by: Borg at May 19, 2007 10:00 PM

"Why would allah make people who could not follow his rules? Why did he put a 'seal on their hearts and on their hearings' so they could not understand if he really WANTS them to understand? A strange thing to do is it not?"

Borg,

Absolutely! And if Allah "put a 'seal on their hearts and on their hearings' so they could not understand" Why try to convert anyone?

I would really like to know how Muslims answer these questions.

Posted by: rational at May 20, 2007 12:23 AM

Godefroi,

"Now what? :)"

Perhaps we chalk up another contradiction in the Koran. The Koran states over and over again that it confirms the previous scriptures*, but there are other statements in it that suggest that is contradicts the previous scriptures, e.g., its statements about Jesus.

*It also states that Allah is merciful, etc.

Gnosis,

I think what you cite is a quite a good direct rebuttal to the inner/higher/greater jihad apologetics, but I suggest that it requires something in addition. The problem is that the verse 4:95 actually does not use the word for physical fighting/killing (q-t-l), but rather that has been added by Hilali and Khan, Yusuf Ali, and some others. I think apologists will make a big deal about that. They have some wiggle room there and they will use it. The verse 4:95 should definitely by cited, but another translation should be used for that, and other verses such as 4:77, which do clearly use the word fighting and show that fighting is mandatory (e.g., 2:216) for the able-bodied, and that "inner jihad" stuff like prayer, etc. is clearly not sufficient according to the Koran. Once that's established, the Islam critic can then go to the hadith, sira, commentators, Islamic law, current events, statistics, etc. to bring in additional evidence to contest the inner jihad apologetics.

http://www.quranbrowser.com/

4:95 Ibn Kathir http://www.mquran.org/index.php/content/view/6869/2/

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 20, 2007 2:02 AM

Godefroi,

"...but there are other statements in it that suggest that is contradicts the previous scriptures, e.g., its statements about Jesus."

..and that would imply that the author(s) of the Koran regard(s) the (Christian) claim that Jesus was the Son of God, divine, etc., rather than just a prophet, as a corruption of the message...if that message is in the New Testament then the scriptures are "corrupted" according to Islam because the Koran cannot be wrong.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 20, 2007 2:11 AM

Reposted:

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot

Habiibi, read the following three sentences and then tell me which religion, in your opinion, is the most universal.

a) In Judaism, Jews are the Chosen People.
b) In Islam, Arabs are the chosen race.
c) In Christianity, humanity is the chosen race.

==================
Moral: never, ever, should a muhammadan call a Christian (like myself) a racist. I have no defense to the charge of being a bigot or an islamophobe, however. I'm allowed to hate Satan.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 21, 2007 4:04 PM

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic

The Old Testament is written in Hebrew (and a tiny amount of Aramaic) and its been understood by and provided inspiration for billions of non-Hebrew readers.

The New Testament is written in Greek and its been
> understood by and provided inspiration for billions of non-Greek readers.

The Bhagavad-Ghita is written in Sanskrit and its been understood by and provided inspiration for billions of non-Sanskrit readers.
=======================
The Qur'an is hard to understand because its a poorly plagiarized, literary pastiche cobbled together from hundreds of snippets of imperfectly remembered or imagined sayings from the mind of an illiterate, epileptic, sexually perverted, homicidal megalomaniac.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 21, 2007 4:06 PM