ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....
Did a follower of mohammed actually use "free will?" Please stop. Free will and islam. A natural connection. Naturally insane. One is denied free will when one is threatened with death for a uniquely personal decision.
Typical argument by a follower of the death cult. Misinterpretation my white, hairy, Twinkie enlarged, butt.

Posted by: Kevin at January 9, 2008 9:54 AM

Freewill and Islam? They go together like oil and water.

Posted by: Elric66 at January 9, 2008 10:08 AM

"Surprisingly sedate." That's rich. Instead of the expected wild-eyed rants, you see, he found me "surprisingly sedate." I wonder if people like Zahed Amanullah are ever going to realize that CAIR and Co. have sold him and others a bill of goods about what I say and do, and how I say and do it".

Islam permits deception ("War is deception") and this will be its undoing. Deception alters perception. I think it changes brain patterns, cripples the ability to think logically, makes one prone to other deceivers. The first victim of deception is the deciever. Fibrahim Hooper and CAIR are liars, but most Muslims will believe them.

The permissions to deception in Islam are loathsome. Jesus is right: all deception comes from the evil one.

Robert, you can present truth till the cows come home, but they will not dare to confront the truth, but will lie about you and what you say (Fibrahim Hooper style). "War is deception". People are getting it re that and Islam's rationalizations for dominance.

Posted by: Frank at January 9, 2008 10:08 AM

He forgot to mention the surprising lack of horns and cloven hooves.

Posted by: special_guest at January 9, 2008 10:18 AM

What's the odds Zahed will take up Robert's offer?
About as much as Tampa Bay winning the world series in 2008.

Posted by: Briars at January 9, 2008 10:26 AM

"He forgot to mention the surprising lack of horns and cloven hooves."

I found the horn's at the link below ,but the fellow they're on is all smiles ??????
I don't get it,I thought the evil one was supposed to look evil ?

MOSES MEETS A BURNING BUSH
by Barry Chamish

And Moses saw a George Bush aflame. Consumed by curiosity, he approached the Bush and it said to him, "Moses, take off your shoes. You are on holy land." To which Moses humbly answered, "In that case, you're better off if I keep my shoes on."

Said the Bush, "I am the god of Adam, Mayer and Benedict. You will do my bidding. Get the Jews out of the Land of Israel."

"They won't like that. I think they want to stay."

"I have prepared the way for you. I have commanded my emissary Richard Jones to order the wise legal felon Nurit Beinish to take all civil rights from those who dwell on their ancient land. I have commanded the trembling cup of iniquity Olmert to remove the arms of the dwellers and to pass to the Philistines 50 Armored Carriers from the land of the Rus. If the Jews darest to rebel,they shall be slaughtered like sheep in a pen. I will appear before the tribes on the ninth of January and they shall be enamored of me and they shall obey me."

"Playing the devil's advocate, if you don't mind, the Jews will guardeth you with the gang that murderethed Rabin. Praise be to vicious Peres."

"Pereth, ahem, Peres worketh with the Holy See, god of Blair our ambassador, blessed be his name. How Tony lovest to watcheth I Love Lucifer. The Jews are indeed a vile and stupid people. You killeth them and they canst not perceive what thou has wrought. We just knocked off another one, the wretched Ido Zoldan. The blessed Shabak arrestedth the murderers and turned them over to the Philistines, who voweth to liberate the heroes. Thou Shalt Murder, sayeth the burning Bush and the wicked Jews believeth their leaders coordinated it not with the enemy. We knowest well how to destroy our perfidious foes. And no mortal piece of dust canst stoppeth us. I am a god, I am in all places at all times watching over my domain. Except Fargo, North Dakota, but do not getteth me started."

"Come not to Jerusalem I beseechest of thee. The children of Israel awaiteth thee."

"The children of Israel? They're perfectly grown already. They must to desist being called kiddies. Yet they are a wicked breed and simpleminded. Hast we not infiltrated all their trusted tribes? Hast they no one left to lead them? To rebel against the burning Bush, they are required to act alone. They would rather die before they defendeth their land. They remain the servants of god, and thus, I say, cannot eateth in the main dining room. Moses, thou must abide by me. Stareth at the ground. Below you will see a cobra. Pluck it into your hand."

"I defy my lord Bush, for I am willful and stubborn. I heareth it really stingeth when it biteth."

"It was my will to turn it into a rod, but okayeth. When the Jews are finally expelled or slaughtered, we will meet again at this mountain. I will giveth thee two tablets. Taketh them and calleth me in the morning."

http://averyheavystone.blogspot.com/

Posted by: rocketman at January 9, 2008 10:27 AM

And would Zahed Amanullah care to comment on the following verse in the Koran:

"2:216. Fighting may be imposed on you, even though you dislike it. But you may dislike something which is good for you, and you may like something which is bad for you. GOD knows while you do not know."

In other words muslims are told to follow the diktats of the Koran and Hadiths even though their brains and hearts may recoil from what is being asked of them to do. Doesn't sound like much of a 'free will' to me.

Posted by: Razdan at January 9, 2008 10:28 AM

I'd already decided the mainstream media was systematically lying about Islam before I found Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch. I was trying to find information on Islam which couuld explain the actual behavior of its followers. Before I found JW/DW I realized "Islam means peace" implied some bizarre permutation on the word peace. Some people are capable of making the bizarro mental shift which is required to understand Islam despite the army of propagandists.

Most aren't. So Islam will continue to dominate where it has a majority and slowly gain strength where it doesn't. Notice our views on Iraqi governance and Muslim immigration don't link. People say there's no way Arabs will implement a western style democracy, but let them in in droves anyway.

Hmmmm?

Posted by: Beagle at January 9, 2008 10:29 AM

This is why Islam in general cannot be trusted at all. Its like Muslims have all these seemingly flexible interpretations of the quran that can be spun in order to dodge any media confrontation with western Judeo-Christian influenced values...yet the goal lagging behind it is to ultimately destroy our culture, our values and replace them with Sharia pillars.

Posted by: SoteriA at January 9, 2008 10:34 AM

So those sedatives I sent you worked?

Posted by: Hugh at January 9, 2008 11:06 AM

"it's that humans have been given free will to choose their destiny"
--Amanullah--

Yeah, sure, free will to choose one's destiny and leave Islam. There's just that annoying obstacle of Sharia and the rule of death for apostacy standing in the way.

Robert's quality of scholarship in Islam is irreproachable. His Islamic sources, the canonical texts and the words of mainstream Muslim authorities themselves, make it so.

They are compelled to implement the taqiyya, for as Robert has shown us, the truth just isn't an option for them. Not if the facade of Islam that they present, and is generally accepted, is to remain as is.

Posted by: awake at January 9, 2008 11:11 AM

Hugh:

Surprisingly, yes.

Yrs
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 9, 2008 11:26 AM

Well done as always Mr. Spencer. I appreciate your blogging of the Koran. The problem is when people begin to characterize what is in it like the Muslim apologists ALWAYS do. It says what it says and that's that.

You look at what it says and what scholars say about it without characterizing that 'this is good' or 'this is bad'. I appreciate that and wish that your work would not be characterized in such a negative light.

I have little doubt that even life-long Muslims could learn a lot from your work on the Koran and its teachings.

Posted by: ThackerAgency at January 9, 2008 12:02 PM

Thank you Robert. My 14 year old grandson actually told me that Christianity if worse than Islam...he learned this in class! I tried to put him right and pointed him to your site if he wishes to learn correctly! Hope he listens, if not, he may be brainwashed by the lefties in Colorado!

Posted by: sharinlite at January 9, 2008 12:14 PM

Robert and Hugh,

Any comment on this piece by TARIQ RAMADAN

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080108.wcomment0108/BNStory/International/home

Posted by: John_Doe at January 9, 2008 12:22 PM

I've had the discussion about Spencer being "surprisingly sedate" with detractors online, and I think what they mean, whether or not they use these words, is "unexpectedly reasonable". One fellow insisted that Spencer's reasonable air, even-handed discussion and fair treatment of his subject matter is an evil, underhanded tactic that disguises his hatred for Muslims.

Zahed describes Spencer as an "Islam critic", and his readers as being "predisposed to despise it".

Hmm. First comment is fair enough, from Zahed's perspective, although as far as I can tell, Spencer is less of a critic than a flashlight -- he merely shines a light into dark corners (of which he finds a great many in Islam). Unlike Hitchens, who tends to grossly distort and spin his analysis of religions he is disposed against, Spencer is quite passive in the sense that he merely allows the religion (or those who adhere to it) to become their own critics. It's a Christian thing: by your words you will be condemned. His own condemnation is pretty low tone. Not much need be said after some of the things he exposes, in any case.

I'm glad Zahed wasn't insistent upon "Islam hater". I don't know if this would be appropriate for Spencer. Certainly "muslim hater" would not be. "Islam hater" would depend, I think, on semantics. Spencer is a scholar, and like most scholars, develops a somewhat detached or mildly sympathetic view of his subject matter (something different from advocating for it!). But in a certain sense, yes, he is a critic of Islam.

As for his readers being "predisposed to despise" Islam, I suppose this is true for some, as evidenced by comments here. But I wonder, is anyone predisposed to despise any ideology, or does the dislike grow in response to what one finds in that ideology? It is probably true that Spencer's writings increase dislike of Islamist (and even Islamic) ideology, but this is mainly the fault of that ideology; after all, he's only a flashlight, or a mirror, showing it for what it is.

I hope, and I believe Spencer hopes, that this dislike for the ideology does not lead to widespread hatred for muslims in general. As far as I can tell that is not Spencer's enterprise. He has called, on numerous occasions, for the kind of transformation in the Islamic world that would benefit muslims immensely, and though he gives little hope for such, encourages efforts toward the reform of Islam through reinterpretation or culling of source texts into something compatible with a modern pluralistic worldview.

That Zahed puts things as he does gives hope that he presents a reasonable person to dialog with, and I sincerely hope that he and Spencer strike up a wider, and reasonable, conversation.

On the issue of predestination, I have always imagined that there is the same ambiguity in Islam as in Christianity. Calvinism is of the view that God determines who comes to him, drawing on teachings of Paul and Jesus ("no man comes to me unless the Father draws him"), but other traditions draw on other passages that suggest the opposite. The grass-roots Christian view appears to be that there is a tension between free will and predestination that must simply be left as a paradox caused by a blurred distinction between foreordainment and foreknowledge. In any case, I think Spencer is right that the "orthodox" Islamic view (that is, in most major sects) leans toward strict predestination, or divine control of all eventualities, ultimately denying free will. But there is probably a strong enough contrarian view at the grass roots level for Zahed to argue intelligently the other way.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at January 9, 2008 12:46 PM

sharinlite. Don't give up. If you don't fight for your grandson against the rubbish being taught in school, who will? I currently face the same problem with my stepson and will one day face the same with my daughters and son. I view my time here at JW and other similar sites as training. Much luck and keep the faith, so to speak.

Posted by: Kevin at January 9, 2008 12:52 PM

Finally, he asserts: "Still, the idea of explaining the Qur'an in depth to an audience that is already predisposed to despise it is not a very efficient use of influence."

I am offended. Can I riot now?

Zahed Amanullah - I don't despise the Koran, the Hadith or the
Sira. However, after reading the Qur'an I have a lot of questions. Since you claim that human beings have free will (I agree!), I have a right to ask them.

To you, Islam is a religion. To me, it appears to be a political system. Can you point out any parables, moral instuction or religious metaphors in the Qur'an?

Why are the Jewish people singled out for the wrath of Allah as well as Mohammed and his followers?

Why is it necessary for unbelievers to submit to the rule of Islam? If Allah is sending them to Hell, why do his followers have to create a Hell on Earth for them?

Since the Qur'an derives a lot from both Jewish and Christian teachings, why do "People of the Book" have pay "protection" taxes to Moslims?

Posted by: tanstaafl at January 9, 2008 12:58 PM

Not really on-topic but related...

In fact, in early Islam there was a controversy about free will and divine sovereignty, and the Qadariyya, the upholders of free will, emerged as the losers -- the heretical party. The Qur'an -- and particularly the Shia in interpreting it -- affirms that a person is responsible for his actions, but it also simultaneously affirms that Allah decides everything and guides everyone to truth or falsehood ("Allah leads astray those whom he wills, Qur'an 35:8).

This goes to the heart of mohammedan victimhood.

If you're not clear on having free will, then there is almost no logical way to avoid seeing yourself as a victim of circumstance.

It seems, based on what I see above, that the mohammedan cultures have a built in confusion on the question of free will.

Being people (like any other people) they will have at least partially and implicitly learned the concept of free will by self observation.

As has been offered as an argument and example many times "If I don't have free will, why do I feel like I do?".

On the other hand the cultural atmosphere, has been influenced by such dicta as sura 10:99-100 cited above:

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe? No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand."

A cultural atmosphere bent in this direction will not, indeed can not encourage or support firm convictions about, or a clear understanding of the concept of free will.

So the mohammedan thinker (and will-we nill-we we must all think a little, just to survive), is left without the intellectual tools required to form a clear understanding of his responsibility for his own fate.

What is perhaps even darker is that the verse RS cites, is a denial of responsibility for one's own thoughts.

So, if this attitude is adopted, the notion of mental self improvement will also be out of reach. Indeed, even the notion of education becomes a little shaky and vague.

===========

Most of all (and I'm running out of time here) the mohammedan thinker is left in a terrifying position.

The heroic (western) concept of the self, free-will, "master of my own fate" etc... has its comforts in a chaotic and dangerous world. I.e. "I may be in danger, but I can chart my own course and fight off misfortune".

But the mohammedan cannot form, especially if they are devout on these points, such a firm and self-affirming conviction. They are left to wonder whether it is the will of allah that they suffer or not, passively.

This is psychologically terrifying for anyone.

And that fear must engender confusion, hostility and a propensity to blame.

===========

This was all rather sloppy but I hope you get my point.

Gotta go.

Posted by: joeblough at January 9, 2008 1:24 PM

I'm not sure what he does these days, but a few years ago Zahed Amanullah was based in the Bay Area, where he was the communications director for MPAC. The MPAC connection should tell everyone all they need to know about this fellow. His wife used to be a visiting "Islamic Studies" professor at Stanford, where she indoctrinated students with the usual "Muslims are victims...Israel and US foreign policy are the problem" schtick. As is the case with most Muslims who attempt to convey a "moderate" image, the Amanullahs refuse to look inward and find any fault with their own religion and its adherents. Imagine that if around the world there were many acts of violence and intolerance carried out in the name of Christianity or Judaism--there would certainly be an outcry and self reflection from Christians or Jews. Faced with the fact that there is widespread violence and intolerance carried out in the name of Islam, where is the outcry from Muslims?

Posted by: NCKaffir at January 9, 2008 1:31 PM

joe blough -

Good post!

The instability of not having any control of your own fate must be very unsettling. And when "infidels" question your faith..............

Jihad!

Posted by: tanstaafl at January 9, 2008 1:58 PM

It would appear that to be a "scholar" of Islam the trick is to be able to tell observers with a straight face that the Kuran doesn't teach Muslims to commit acts of homicide and/ or violence against woman and infidels and then turn around and tell the "true believers" to go out and massacre "unbelievers" in the name of al-lah so as to become a 'martyr' because that is what the Kuran really teaches.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 9, 2008 2:43 PM

Just to remark on the 'free will' vs 'inshallah' argument:

years and years and years ago, before 9/11, and before I ever read the Quran, I started in to read the unabridged unexpurgated classic translation of the 1001 Nights by the 19th century English adventurer, explorer and Orientalist scholar, Sir Richard Francis Burton. I did so because I knew that the 'sinbad the sailor' and 'aladdin' stories I had read as a child, came from a larger collection and were heavily abridged - I wanted to know what the full-strength original was like.

I didn't finish it - it took up a whole shelf in the library, a formidable phalanx of fat volumes - but I read, I think, the first three volumes at least.

It taught me a very great deal about Islam-on-the-ground, folk Islam, Islam as imagined and practised by the people who had collected and retold those tales. Burton's numerous - and frequently shocking, for a naive young Australian Christian - footnotes, with anthropological, sexual, scatalogical and sociological data about what went on in arabised islamised societies, were as illuminating as the stories themselves.

Those volumes of the Arabian Nights taught me what Hugh Fitzgerald calls 'the atmospherics' of Islam. And above all else (besides the superstition, jinns and suchlike), what struck me was the paralysing fatalism that suffused so many of the stories. Mostly it was implicit; but in some stories the Will of Allah was the central theme, and you could *never* escape what was inexorably decreed to happen.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 9, 2008 3:00 PM

Thank-you Robert for blogging the Koran. God Bless.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 9, 2008 5:16 PM

From alt.muslim :

" ... humans have been given free will to choose their destiny..."

Now this is patently false. I wonder if he would write something like this if he lived in say...Saudi Arabia ? I doubt it . The religious police would see to that .

I think this chap is in denial about his religion .

Posted by: purplemarbles at January 9, 2008 5:37 PM

Zahed has responded to Robert in typical fashion saying that Robert has allied himself with the extremists. Here is what he says on alt.muslim:

Robert allies himself with the extremists in their common interpretation of Islam being a religion of endless conflict. I am working to promote in my own way a practice of Islam - regardless of the differences of opinion within it - that is respectful of others and exists peaceably within pluralistic societies, Muslim and non-Muslim. I stand by my opinion, but I also choose not to let myself be distracted from this important work by either Robert or the extremists.

So thank you for your comments, but that's all I'm going to say about this

Posted by: Cuda at January 9, 2008 5:45 PM

Oh, BTW, they've shut down the ability to add comments on this alt.muslim article. Typical. If you can't stand the heat, kick everyone out of the kitchen.

Posted by: Cuda at January 9, 2008 5:50 PM

Free will in Islam?

Then why did Muhammad call himself a 'slave of Allah' and why is every other Muhammadan named Abdullah-, 'slave of Allah?'
Why does Islam mean 'submission' if the individual has is free to do as he wills?

Really, these guys are beyond shameless, they would paint a pussy on your cheek if you let them.

Mr. Spencer, wouldn't you say this sura here is even more on the money than the one you quoted? (Not to question your authority, just popped up...)

Qur'an 33:36, "It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 9, 2008 10:50 PM

What worries, is that ZAHED AMANULLAH from altIslam is perceived as a 'moderate'- which, once you take a closer look, is anything but: when it comes to the crunch its only tbout the fast and slow jihad, Zahed likes the way Islam steadily spreads its tentacles in the UK, no terror needed. No need to wake up sleeping dogs.

Once again, its only about strategy, how to make -in his case the UK- islamic. That's what matters, thats all that matters. But when it comes to the doctrine itself, the Koran, the tenets and the atmospherics of Islam, he lies and denies and engages in every deflection and obfuscation, regardless.

Isn't Zahed the guy from the 'undercover mosque' video's who is on handouts from the government to reign in the 'radicals?' Or was he interviewed by Christiane Amanwhore showing her how swell it all was, and given time that the 'radicals' could be brought under control, if we would only throw enough money at the problem?

We are such suckers..

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 9, 2008 11:21 PM

Oh, BTW, they've shut down the ability to add comments on this alt.muslim article. Typical. If you can't stand the heat, kick everyone out of the kitchen.

Posted by: Cuda at January 9, 2008 5:50 PM

Amanllah was specifically challenged and did all he could....run away and hide.

I mean, a whole two comments if tough to deal with, right?

Posted by: awake at January 9, 2008 11:57 PM

Amanullah: "Still, the idea of explaining the Qur'an in depth to an audience that is already predisposed to despise it is not a very efficient use of influence."

Tu quoque Mr Amanullah! It is not a very efficient use of influence to preach the beauty and peace of Islam to Muslims and sociaists. But whay else could we ever expect from the Guardian?

Muslims never face the "truth" - the worst societies humanity has ever known. Meanwhile the socialists are too busy working out their "inner guilt" by denigating the value of their own culture and importing the "morally superor culture" of Islamic states.

So much for Islamic intellectualism - if you can't win the argument (like Mohammad couldn't) you can always resort to killing, violence and intimidation. That, Mr Amanullah, explains why Islam - like disease - always spreads.

Posted by: Stefcho at January 10, 2008 5:34 AM

Just a suggestion: within any debate, try to think of injecting the line of thought that the Creator God actually aspires to have every single one of Its human creations to think the thoughts and walk the walk in the ways that the Koran outlines. How bogus to think and believe that the thoughts generated from that book are reflective of the actual Mind of a Creator God. What a farce this idea is to anyone with half a brain.

Somehow, someday, someone is going to come along and rhetorically slap the bejesus out of any and everyone who entertains thoughts for a sense of legitimacy for that cockeyed book.

Posted by: k24anson at January 10, 2008 4:34 PM