I keep telling people that Islam is a system unto itself, and that we have competing systems such as Western democracy, Socialism (Stalinism, Maoism, etc..), and Islam. It's simply one group's Way of Being versus another, and what we think is good/bad or black/white is really irrelevant. It has no basis in reality because you're dealing with people who think and exist within a completely different paradigm.

People who value OUR system need to guard it jealously, and promote it vigorously precisely because THAT is what's happening with the other two systems. We need to really believe that our Way of Being is BETTER than their Way of Being. And that's the crux of the matter. Our country, our Western Democracy has been infested by Socialists that hate our system and has caused most of us to not value what we have. Socialists have weakened our identity and our will, and fighting Islam in any sustantive way is folly because very few people in our system actually believe it to be the best.

Relativism will prove to be our downfall and will usher in the aggressive meme of Islam. It's just the way it is. Our freedom gives safe harbor to Socialism and Islam, and they have not only gained footholds here, but have control and access to our institutions of higher learning, governments, and our military and para-military organizations.

This is quite literally a matter of political will. This battle has to be won politically first. Here. In our Congressional districts. And then in our Senate. And then at the White House. Once we have a political will to confront Islamism, we can actually make progress. Until that happens though, this battle is being fought very deliberately, and very effectively, by the other two systems on every level within Western Democracy. Make no mistake. They are clearly in control at this point.

How do we win?

We need to stop being ashamed of who we are. We need to elect politicians that value our way of life. We need to rid our institutions of Islamist and Marxists. This can only be done at the grass roots level. I'm sorry, but I really do think most people are too distracted to care.

We'll see...

Posted by: antishock8 at January 26, 2008 8:19 AM

"So, to return more strictly to Coughlin's thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end." -- from the article

This is what those in power and in the media told me and I believed it. I thought it made sense.

I don't believe it anymore.

Posted by: Josephine at January 26, 2008 8:33 AM

Re: "Coughlin points out that on the basis of very little, Bush, Rice, and other Administration people blithely declare Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few violent extremists for their own agenda, an agenda which they insist has nothing to do with Islam".

Thus, for example, we continuously have Elvis sightings on the matter of peace in the Mid East. We refuse to see reality. But it's the ground-zero of the delusion that Jihad is not rooted in Islam. It is rooted in Islam: there and elsewhere. That's why so many Muslims don't like JihadWatch Reality School...

"The next segment of Sura 2, verses 75-105, continues the Qur’an’s criticism of the Jews. When you read statements by Hamas leaders or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel, remember that they view Israel and Jews through a Qur’anic prism. They have learned, if they have studied the Qur’an at all, that the Jews are the most perverse and guilty – as well as the craftiest and most persistent – enemies of Allah, Muhammad and the Muslims"-Robert Spencer.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/24/blogging-the-qur%e2%80%99an-sura-2-%e2%80%9cthe-cow%e2%80%9d-verses-75-140/

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 9:12 AM

"Muslims are told that they are meant to Islamicize the countries they live in, through "peaceful" means if they can, and violent means when necessary, and we already see signs of this in Europe and America".

As Hugh has pointed out, the whole culture is a failure. Any other culture-civilization (China, Japan, Germans, US, Israel) that had the oil lottery winnings of the Saudis would have used it to build a mighty and productive industrial base in the Arab world and caused that region to be respected wealth producers. Instead, they are a lay-about "cargo culture" that only exports this mind numbing "religion"-"ideology". If they lose that oil lottery ticket they will be banging on the door of producer cultures and demanding jizya from the Dhimmis.

Islam is foot-binding for the mind and is the last thing to import anywhere. It is fatal. Just look at what the Arabs have done with their lottery winnings.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 9:37 AM

"So, to return more strictly to Coughlin's thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end.

Precisely."

Apparently, like Coughlin, we here at JW are perspicacious as all-get-out, while our "leaders" are mental sluggards. It's like they are deliberately - deliberately - ignoring what the enemy comes right out and says!

Posted by: darcy at January 26, 2008 9:38 AM

To Islamicize means doing this for the mind...

http://hlperson.com/mt/archives/bound%20foot.jpg

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 9:44 AM

"antishock8"

You've nailed it. As one who was, many years ago, a Marxist I know exactly how these people have been destroying us from within and laying us bare to the more muscular, truculent enemy that Islam is.

And there is more. Not only have they eroded our sense of justifiable pride in our country and its institutions, but they have also constructed elaborate, sophisticated viral attacks on our Christian and Jewish religious institutions and values. They have made it possible for the stupid "moral equivalency" argument to be bandied about. Here on JihadWatch on this topic of Stephen Coughlin we see this card being played incessantly by the likes of "Jeffery Carr" on other threads (any bets he'll show up on this thread too?).

You cannot accommodate these viral attacks. They only burrow more deeply into the protein layers of the host and continue to weaken it. It has to be fought robustly in the realm of ideas within our institutions.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 26, 2008 9:45 AM

Coughlin uses his expertise in Islamic law to
firmly establish the "third view." That the
Jihad ideology of the "extremists" is in perfect
accord with Islamic Law, and that the legal definiton of Jihad is "warfare against non-Muslims to establish the religion"(establishing the religion meaning having authority over all earth)--'Umdat al-Salik

Because Islamic Law comes from Allah who alone is sovereign, the legal definition is the controlling one. Because in Islam God has rights the "Rights of Allah" create legally binding obligations (hukm shari) and Jihad is a hukm shari that cannot be overruled by man (and is also
beyond the scope of Ijtihad, even if those gates were to be reopened).

There is even a legal support for use of WMD "if the army of Islam attacks the territory of war (Dar al-harb) and it is a territory that has received an invitation to accept Islam...the army may launch an attack on the enemy by night or by day and it is permissible to burn the enemy fortifications with fire or to inundate them with water." (al-Saybani)--WMD tactics of the day being burning and flooding. Just as there is legal support for "martyrdom operations"; killing apostates; killing blasphemers; and the upholding of abrogation--all of the emphasis on Jihad comes from Surah Nine, affirming its pre-eminent status.

Coughlin also shows the extent to which Islamic Law is embedded in the constitutions of Muslim nations. "It should be noted that no other legal standards were recognized as providing such a basis in these constitutions. Postive preference
was given to the Islamic(body of Law). These
constitutions are likewise subordinated to the same Islamic law identified in the 'Umdat al-Salik'." This holds true even when the regimes do not currently follow the requirments of Islamic law.

Coughlin's conclusion is that Islamic law does not appear to provide a legal basis for new interpretations. That the Salafi position today would appear to be the one endorsed by Muhammad: "One who survives me shall see profound disagrement. You should then follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Hold fast to it and follow it to the last letter. You should desist from following new practices, because every new practice is innovation (heresy) and every innovation is error." (Abu Dawud) In another hadith Muhammad explicitly tells Muslims the "best of Muslims" (to emulate)are his own generation and the two that will follow.

Implications too grim for the Pentagon "brain trust"?

Posted by: Nick Danger at January 26, 2008 9:56 AM

Excellent post, Robert.

I equivocated between views two and three for some time, and settled on three, a view that I first began to develope 30 years ago when I first encountered the Quran.

My Sufi friends would apologetically tell me at that time that the Quran '...is difficult. Great care must be taken with its interpretation'. That, it seemed to me, both then and now, is the understatement of all time.

But the arguments of your detractors (ahistoricity, literalism, lack of contextualisation or recognition of the pluralism in Islam, which is not monolithic) hold some force too. But what they do not grasp (and you do) is the element of globalisation. They don't see the bigger picture. Their picture is of a myriad of little local quaint colourful Islams, rich in culture and interpretation, secure in their traditions, and at peace with themselves and the world.

If only.

Globalisation has the effect of standardisation. Instead of this quaint oldie-worldy view of hermetically sealed peaceful beautiful Islams (where jihadi theology has not been renounced, but is only inactive)the view that Islamic Studies departments are fascinated by, what we are seeing is the appearance of radical post-colonial discourse of jihadis who read the primary sources in exactly the same way that your detractors say you do - without reference to history, context, literally, etc.

It is because they do that (and 'moderate' Muslims will not revise the Quran or admit it is flawed, and may secretly even agree with its supremacist ideology, for who would not like to see their 'party' win) that your literalist critique is necessary.

All over the world we find this Salafi view gaining ground where it never held sway before. Just look at the visible signs - the burqa and the niqab. These are being worn like a uniform across the globe in places like Pakistan and even India where they were never worn before.

It is time Islamic Studies departments woke up to the fact that Islam is being hijacked by the rather unattractive literalist interpretation that you have been highlighting and opposing, and their world is increasingly one of the past.

And they have been able to do so because the primary sources themselves are flawed!

Posted by: devorgilla at January 26, 2008 10:00 AM

However, the truth will out, one way or the other, and cannot be ignored and denied forever.

Agreed, but the question is whether it will out in time or not.

I keep insisting that this clash will boil down to feet-on-the-ground, toe-to-toe fighting. In that case, the important consideration is "how many fighting men and women do we need to secure our civilization?".

This interesting scenario analysis is along the lines of what I mean:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64924

Fortunately, the enemy we face is almost completely dependent on outsiders for weaponry, and we could perhaps shift our flow of aid from all Muslim countries to those countries supplying them with weapons that are potentially recruitable. I'm thinking primarily of Russia. If we just took all the money we send to the Palestinians, Egyptians et al. we could probably get Russia to stop supplying Iran with nuclear equipment. North Korea would be a different story, but if the Israel-Syria episode this fall really did involve destroying something shipped from NK, it would seem we have a decent handle on what's flowing to the Mideast from NK. We could probably pressure China (they send us shirts and toys, we make sure their teeming masses have jobs. I'm pretty sure the impact of mass unemployment would be worse for them than the impact of paying a few extra bucks for a shirt or doing without a toy would be for us).

I read the other day that Muslim countries are net grain importers and, hence, literally depend on non-Muslim countries for their daily bread. Stop those shipments and let them starve. You can't wage jihad on 200 calories a day, no matter how much you want to fight in the way of Allah.

I know, there are those who will say "collective punishment", blah, blah, blah. Ride that moral high horse all the way to your funeral, buddy. As for me and mine, I'll take the low road and find a way to live (emphasis on "live") with myself later. Somehow I doubt I'll be losing much sleep.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 10:03 AM

Apparently, like Coughlin, we here at JW are perspicacious as all-get-out, while our "leaders" are mental sluggards. It's like they are deliberately - deliberately - ignoring what the enemy comes right out and says!
Posted by: darcy at January 26, 2008 9:38 AM

The folks at JW school know that Elvis is dead. They (our "leaders") are in denial. I'm sure it leaves an uneasy feeling in many folks who realize that.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 10:13 AM

As plain as the nose on one's face.

OK now, how do we deal with the illusionists with whom we have to ally to achieve victory ?

The same way one eats an elephant.

A little at a time.

(But let's hope it's not too late.)

Posted by: dgene at January 26, 2008 10:22 AM

While some holders of the 2nd view may find it productive to work with the minority of holders of the 3rd view (you, Horowitz, Epstein, etc.), in spite of their differences, many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy!

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 10:37 AM

Quoted from the article, "administration has been wrong on the relation of Islam to jihadist and terrorism."

My take:

I have repeated so many times here at JW:

For years I told my American friends of the dangers I lived under Islam, but I am taken as a lunatic.

I will repeat it again of what my audience said to me--- "It won't happen here--we love freedom to much."

The article should say, " WE AMERICANS have been wrong on the relation of Islam to jihadist and terrorism."

We elected our officials out of the pool of people in America. What's offered is taken from the pool of people who have the same attitude.

When the pool is turbid, what's drawn for a cup cannot possibly be clean water?

Democracy is governed by its people. What's elected is chosen by the people of the like mind.

It's hard enough for to rouse a brother, let alone waking the populace.

Posted by: ssa at January 26, 2008 10:42 AM

If as you assert the reality is no.3 then from this we can ascertain;

1) The war on terror and the democratisation of the world plans of the neo-conservatives in the white house will fail

2) that the new Democratic Imperalism plans by the neo-cons for the planet will fail and that all US and UK troops must return home ASAP as they are doing no good in those nations they are in such as Iraq and Afghanistan

3) That Internationalism must be replaced by Nationalism and nations like the UK must repatriate their troops and police their own borders and defeat the Jihad in the UK and that the Jihad cannot be defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan

4) That we have all been conned by Bush etc and the Neo-Cons and that both the Democrats and Labour and the Conservatives and the Republicans are idiots who have deluded themselves and us

5) That Israel is not the front line of the Jihad BECAUSE IN FACT EVERYWHERE THERE ARE MUSLIMS IS THE FRONT LINE OF THE JIHAD and therefore the argument for defending Israel must be replaced with the need to defend ourselves first

6) That muslims must be divided into those with us and those against us and that those against us must be regarded as enemies within

7) That the Liberal Democratic system has failed and that the Liberal Consensus is as dangerous to us as the Islamists themselves as it disarms us

8) That Liberals and Islamists are both the inner enemy

9) That at some point ati-Jihadists must allie with those nationalists and naionalist parties to defeat both the liberals and the islamists if we are to save our nations, culture and democracies from both the liberals and the islamists

Posted by: Spear Of Odin at January 26, 2008 10:46 AM

Jeffrey Carr-- The question is which of the three is most true, which description most conforms to reality so as to fashion a strategy that will also correspond to reality. Show, as in demonstrate, how this statement of Coughlin is inaccurate & qualifies as "hate propaganda":

"If Current Approach (to the War on Terror) advocates were correct, threat doctrine would have found doctrinal Islam does not support extremist doctrine. In fact, it fully corroberates the claims of the enemy in the WOT. The 'extremists' are correct."

Posted by: Nick Danger at January 26, 2008 10:49 AM

Whence the double standard, Mr. Carr, with respect to Christianity and Judaism, on the one hand, and Islam, on the other hand, such that it is considered "hate speech" (PC code)to criticize Islamic scripture and legal code, but not "hate speech" to speak ill of our core religious traditions?

I fail to have found in anything of what Mr. Coughlin has written in his thesis (I'm not yet finished reading it)that constitutes "hate speech" or in any way inaccurate. I fail to have found anything in Robert's books and articles, or Andrew Bostom's, Serge Trifkovic's, or Bat Ye'or's that constitute anything but solid scholarship. Also, I trust what my eyes have seen and brain processed in my long slog through the Qur'an.

So far on JihadWatch.org your investment in the topic of Maj. Coughlin has been heavily slanted towards seeing his reputation sullied and his work discredited. And that is an accurate assessment, I think. What's your game?

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 26, 2008 11:09 AM

This is the follow up for my post above:

Besides criticizing on our short comings, I felt that I owe Americans an offer of solution to change course from the status quo.

Here is my offer:

What's done is done, but America can rebuild the American thinking from ground up to counter the comfort stemmed from the popular beliefs in the innocuousness of Islam.

To rebuild, we must begin the anti-jihad education from grade schools, but obviously, it will not happen because the opposition has become too turbulent. It can be done only if we have more than 2/3 of the 3 executive branches to undertake the efforts, but then again this 2/3 must still be drawn from the same turbid pool.

Whether chicken or egg came first, it's a mute point. Please do it ASAP!

Posted by: ssa at January 26, 2008 11:09 AM

...I hope Stephen Coughlin get put back into his office and those who forced him out find themselves on the outside looking in....It is very clear to see why the Muslims wanted him out...he knows too much about Islam and Islams battle plans...

Ban Muslim Immigration.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 26, 2008 11:13 AM

many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy!

You are assuming that the jihad dynamic comes from a reaction to an external threat or the perception of an external threat. Even if this were true, which it is not, what would constitute this external threat? Would it be necessary, for example, to directly attack Muslims in order for them to consider us an external threat? No, it is enough simply to resist Islam's missionary impulse to "trigger" the jihad doctrine. The "internal logic" of jihad requires that it be waged wherever there are non-Muslims who have no plans to convert ("revert") to Islam. This is the only interpretation of Islamic doctrine that maintains fidelity to the texts. All that other stuff about "fueling radicalization efforts" is a projection on YOUR PART of what it would take for YOU to wage war against someone. You are guilty of cultural imperialism by denying Muslims the "right" to define whether or not they are a "warlike people" in essence.

Those of us, myself included, who put ourselves in Muslim shoes and view (temporarily) the world as they see it (all it takes is a little imagination and some study) know that they live for jihad. Put in existentialist terms, without jihad, they'd succumb to despair ("the sickness unto death"). It helps that I've studied Greco-Roman culture for a couple of decades, so I'm easily able to put myself in the shoes of a foreign culture. Islam is generally like the earliest Greek culture (pre-Iliadic culture), which was also a shame culture, so I have no problem identifying its defining characteristics and saying that I want no part of them in my daily life.

Stop trying to impose your history-deprived views on me. They're intellectually vacuous and practically dangerous.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 11:19 AM

Put in existentialist terms, without jihad, they'd succumb to despair ("the sickness unto death").

If you don't believe this, look at how pre-Islamic Arabia is decribed and tell me that it wasn't a "civilization" full of despair, the same sort as overtook the ancient pagan world of Rome. That's why Islam "took". A place that's vibrant and full of life would never adopt Islam. Hence the Jews refusal to accept Muhammed as a prophet. Hence my refusal to give them one iota of slack.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 11:27 AM

venividivici,

Russia is like the Arab countries - blessed with natural resources. It also has people who know how to work hard. They produced scientists and they held most of the world at bay for the better part of fifty years. Today they have their own Muslim problem but they continue to prop up governments like that of North Korea and to openly support Iran. They are not lending their power to fight the jihad - they too are enabling it. Just like the Arab countries, Russia's future is in its own hands. It has the resources, human and natural, to create a productive society. Weapons aren't all they have to sell. They're the only means Russia has of extending its influence - proof that that is all Russian leaders seek - power and influence.

You would have us transfer still more wealth to another country whose leaders don't believe in freedom and that wants to extend its hegemony? Why don't we just raise the white flag?

Posted by: PMK at January 26, 2008 11:32 AM

Having had the opportunity now to travel in the Muslim world on numerous trips, having met and discussed certain Islamic matters with Islamic jurists, scholars, and theologians, and having completed my own readings in the area, I am increasingly finding some of the treatment of 'jihadism' here to be suspect.

It's one thing to oppose an interpretive application of a normative teaching when the context of that interpretation has clearly shifted and some do not wish to shift with it. It's another to cast the interpretative application as being normative and immutable itself. The Muslims I have spoken to have made cogent explanations of jihad theology to me, and luminaries such as Al Azhar's Mahmoud Shaltout seem to have presented plausible treatments and understandings of the matter.

Also, it seems rather odd that folks automatically lump Judaism in with Christianity in opposition to Islam when, I think, any reasonable, balanced, objective fair-minded review of the faiths would show that Judaism has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity. Among these commonalities would be a normative, immutable set of authoritarian theocratic laws that govern civil society and cannot be intellectually reconciled with what the West has now developed as standard notions of constitutional republicanism, including basic freedoms, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Posted by: fairuzfan at January 26, 2008 11:33 AM

venividivici,

I doubt Mr. Carr will answer the bell to your challenge. Expect him to dissemble, change the direction of the conversation, and deny that you even hit home with a major dissection of his logic. I spent a few years in academia listening to how people debate and argue their positions, so I've seen almost every conceivable form of escape and evasion. Such is the state of post-modernism in the West. Now, THAT is also a form of sickness unto death.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 26, 2008 11:35 AM

and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. ~ posted above

Now if a Christian was to go jihadi on Mr Carr because of his anti-Christian hate propaganda, we he excuse it as easily as he excuses Islamic jihad?

In other words, would Mr Carr blame himself?

Liberal hypocrites would like to know!

Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 26, 2008 11:38 AM

PMK,

I don't offer my suggestion as a way of raising the white flag. I'm not even saying the Russians would take up the offer, but if they did, and then broke the conditions of the aid by supplying nuclear equipment and weapons, we'd have a 'causus belli' with them. My broader point is that if we can force the "fast jihad" Muslims to rely on their own devices for weapons development, it will be a strategic victory. What I hear you saying is that this is difficult, maybe impossible, and I concur. I just think it's one of the few constructive ways forward.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 11:47 AM

"I know, there are those who will say "collective punishment", blah, blah, blah."

Posted by: venividivici

Yes, this is what the more tenderhearted and well-intentioned people would say. But, here's the thing--most of our foreign aid, be it monetary or other, doesn't reach the intended recipients, anyway.

Whenever they can, the men with the guns take the food, and damn the women who have no guns but plenty of hungry children.

I'm inclined to agree. Stop sending the grain, unless it can be guaranteed to reach those to whom it is being sent. (Not that they won't loathe us, anyway, but humanitarianism is what it is--a hard habit for Americans to break.)

Posted by: Abscedere at January 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Mr. Carr:

Your continued unsubstantiated smears on me and my work are noted.

Now I ask you to document them: please produce one false statement I have ever made about Islam, the doctrine of jihad, or any related matter.

A simple assertion of its falsehood, mind you, is not enough. Please provide the exact statement from me -- a quotation, not a version of what I say written by you -- and clear evidence that it is false.

Please post it here. In other words, put up or shut up. Prove that I am just a "hate propagandist," or take your defamatory hate propaganda elsewhere.

If you cannot do prove this, and I am quite sure you cannot, then I will ban you. I am quite willing, as any longtime reader will attest, to allow disagreement with me in these comments fields, but your continued substanceless smears are not the same thing as honest disagreement.

Thus I await your documentation, and assure you that I will not ban you until you produce it or demonstrate that you cannot do so.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 26, 2008 12:01 PM

Also, it seems rather odd that folks automatically lump Judaism in with Christianity in opposition to Islam when, I think, any reasonable, balanced, objective fair-minded review of the faiths would show that Judaism has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity. Among these commonalities would be a normative, immutable set of authoritarian theocratic laws that govern civil society and cannot be intellectually reconciled with what the West has now developed as standard notions of constitutional republicanism, including basic freedoms, civil rights, and civil liberties.

While I agree broadly with some of the initial parts of this statement (uncompromising monotheism is definitely part of both Judaism and Islam), it is rife with errors and debatable assertions.

1. The "character" of God in the Hebrew scriptures and the Koran is quite different. One obvious point of differentiation is that the Hebrew God loves his creation, whereas Allah more or less puts up with us because if we didn't exist, he couldn't exercise his "judging" powers.

2. The Hebrew scriptures at least partially support the idea that a "Messiah" will emerge from the Isrealites and that "Messiah" may or may not be God in human form, as in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

3. The item I've bolded is the worst, though. Have you ever really studied the evolution of God's message, as embodied in the prophets of Israel? The very fact that it "evolves" from the Mosaic code to the end of the prophetic tradition shows that it is the very opposite of "immutable" (the irony of saying that Jewish law is "immutable" is probably lost on you unless you know Greek. "Deutoronomy" literally means "second set of laws", i.e. to replace the original laws. This is why not everyone is qualified to have an opinion about some things). Also, you should study the histories of the Isrealite kings, as portrayed in the Bible. God wants the Isrealites to remain a "theocracy", but the Isrealites want a king, so there is political evolution as well. Would the Jews ever have evolved republican government "on their own"? I don't know, but I do know that when they could have remained aloof from republican government in Europe, all they wanted to do was participate in it. With their small numbers, it's unlikely that they wanted to do so because they thought they could vote in a Judaic theocracy.

4. If Judaism was so much like Islam, why did the Jews not accept Muhammed as a prophet? I think it's obviously related to point 1 above, but it's difficult to reconcile the historical facts with your assertion. I think it's basically because your assertion is based on one relatively superficial and abstract commonality (monotheism) and doesn't take into account the much more concrete differences between Judaism and Islam (just about everything else, including, as I've shown, your misunderstanding of Judaic law).

And I'm not even Jewish or Christian! Nevermind what some of the actual Jews or Christians would say.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 12:05 PM

Yes, this is what the more tenderhearted and well-intentioned people would say. But, here's the thing--most of our foreign aid, be it monetary or other, doesn't reach the intended recipients, anyway.

Yep, absolutely. I'm sure that unless the strongest get their fill and more, the weakest get nothing.

Let them eat their oil, mixed in with a little sand. Or, if they're from a non-oil country, let them eat their guns and bullets.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 12:10 PM

"While some holders of the 2nd view may find it productive to work with the minority of holders of the 3rd view (you, Horowitz, Epstein, etc.), in spite of their differences, many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy!"

Just more of the same logic that will not stop Jihad and allow it to slither around the globe. As long as we honor the core of the Islamic religion and label any opposition to the practice of it as "hate speech", as if it has been "distorted" by extremist radicals...and try to work with the so called peaceful element, nothing will change. Exactly why we find ourselves in this present mess.

Jihad is Islam.

Always was & will be. As long as the religion gets a free pass and think somehow if we just snuff out the fundamentalists, thinking Islam can peacefully co-exist with us...we've bought into the lie.

Posted by: SoteriA at January 26, 2008 12:10 PM

Fred - if your inability to understand what I've written is indicative of your general reading comprehension, then no wonder you hold the views that you do. You accuse me of a double-standard when I've written nothing to warrant that. I've never referred to Christianity or Judiaism as non-religions.

My position, and I'll put this simply to help you grasp it, is that every religion has, among its adherents, differences in how their individual holy books are interpreted. We see it in Christianity all the time. There are radical fundamentalists in Christianity, known as Christian Reconstructionists, who believe that their interpretation of the Bible is correct and everyone else's more liberal interpretation is wrong. Are you a Christian Reconstructionist, Fred? If you aren't, do you know they consider you apostate? If you are, do you realize that your view is radicalized Christianity?

Likewise, the Stephen Coughlins of the world prefer to interpret the Koran in its most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views. By doing this, the Islamofascist camp is no better than other radicals, and just as wrong. It's never right to claim one correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the religion. In fact, such a narrow view is ALWAYS considered an outlier; not part of mainstream thought.

Furthermore, there's a difference in impact. If you're just Fred living in Muskeegee and you hold this position, it harms no one. If, on the other hand, you're a policy advisor for the DOD, you extremist views can cost lives. That's why Coughlin deserved to be fired.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 12:11 PM

Mr. Carr:

The clock is ticking. I ask you with all respect not to ignore my request.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 26, 2008 12:14 PM

Any idea that is so threatening to others that the speaker must be silenced must have some power that commends the reaction. In Coughlins case the idea that seems to have set the long knives a whetting was the idea that the jihadi aims are embedded in the quran and the hadiths.

If Coughlin had made an error of fact, possibly citing some grievous translation that misstake would have been overlooked, all those involved able to take what was misspoke and adjust accordingly.

If Coughlin had made a weak case for the idea, others could have presented their cases and the step of letting him go would not have to have been made.

It seems self evident that Coughlin presented a case that was irrefutable to such an extent that the only option left for those was to smear him with a hater label and attempt to evade and change the subject.

It seems that the weakness of the ideas floating around in the DOD must have been so threatened by Coughlins thesis that they were UNable to refute them fairly, this also shows to me that there is a lack of confidence in the "official" policy, those who are confident do not need to go postal when confronted with ideas that do not conform to their own.

Hopefully, we will someday reject the obvious cronyism of Gordon England and others like him, who enter service with their own courtiers and yesmen, and not replace them with those who substitute political correctness (oxymoron) for cronyism.

The house of representatives should investigate the obvious cronyism that has infected the DOD and should probe wether the money being spent on "outreach" is money well spent or money being misspent.

Posted by: stickman at January 26, 2008 12:22 PM

With all due respect, venividivic, I believe most of your comments are not correct in your response to my posting. And while I am not any kind of official Judaic authority or scholar, I did spend several years in Orthodox Jewish yeshivah day school and have had numerous, in depth dicussions with rabbis.

Normative binding orthodox Judiasm is based on the authoritiative and immmutable Mosaic code. It is Torah, not the 'prophets' that kept Israel, and provide the static, eternal blueprint for Judaic belief and practice. I don't think reference to non-Jewish, liberal Judaic currents of thought from the past 2 centuries changes my fundamental point and assertion.

Also, I can state with supreme confidence that normative Orthodox Judaism does not allow for a God-in-human-form messiah in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't even allow for the second coming of a purely human messiah, an issue that is currently roiling the Chabad Lubavitch Chasidim with their view of their late rebbi who died in the mid-1990s.

Posted by: fairuzfan at January 26, 2008 12:22 PM

Robert Spencer, I accept your challenge. I won't post anything further in your blog until I've demonstrated how what you've written qualifies as hate speech.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 12:27 PM

Mr. Carr:

Robert Spencer, I accept your challenge. I won't post anything further in your blog until I've demonstrated how what you've written qualifies as hate speech.

Thanks. And good luck with that. Remember: the simple assertion by you is not enough. You have to have evidence. Clear, demonstrable evidence, that what I say about Islam is false.

Otherwise, however unpleasant it is to you, it's true, and it would behoove you to accept the implications of its truth rather than shooting -- or defaming -- the messenger.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 26, 2008 12:29 PM

Also, remember, sir:

The writings of anyone else, such as unmoderated comments on this site, do not count as documentation. The documentation must come from my own writings. I have written 7 books and hundreds of articles, as well as over 19,000 blog posts; you shouldn't have any problem finding "hate propaganda" if it is indeed there.

Happy hunting.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 26, 2008 12:31 PM

" in spite of their differences, many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view)"

What is that 'mission' - is that the delusional attempt to democratise the Middle East or the attempt to delude the public that they arent after the oil ?

Posted by: Spear Of Odin at January 26, 2008 12:31 PM

Mr. Carr,

I am indeed not a Christian Reconstructionist, as you've probably guessed by now. However, here is the difference between the so-called Christian Reconstructionists who would consider me a heretic and apostate and the Muslims who consider those who do not treat the Qur'an as a divine dictation: the Christian Reconstructionists would not put me to death. They would merely choose to not associate with me, or exert great efforts to try to point out that being a Roman Catholic gets me into hell.

Muslim orthodoxy condemns Muslim apostates not just to Gehenna, but to death as well. So it is written in Sharia Law and in the Qur'an, and so shall it be done.

Mr. Coughlin in only trying to point out that jihadis correctly cite Qur'an, Sunnah, and Sharia Law to justify fighting in the way of Allah. It is entirely a defensible argument, replete with so much documented proof that it beggars belief that anyone would consider his work "hate speech" and inciting jihad. The people who incited jihad in the 7th through 21st centuries are those who revert to Islamic sources, not those who point out that this is happening. The victim here is not Islam. It is we infidels, the kafirs. Those who are Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and, yes, even socialists/Marxists. When I was in college in the late seventies and early eighties I knew a lot of Iranian expats who had to flee, even though they aided the revolution that toppled the Shah, because they were Communists or socialists. Anyone who is not a Muslim is not in al illah's good graces. In fact, most Muslims are not, since there are vastly more than the mere 70,000 who will not make it into paradise.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 26, 2008 12:40 PM

Christian Re constructionists are obliged to follow the laws of the land or be imprisoned.

Oh goody! Jeffrey Carr is going to read all of RS' work....maybe he will get hit by the "cluebat".
/doubt it tho

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 26, 2008 12:55 PM

"The Muslims I have spoken to have made cogent explanations of jihad theology to me, and luminaries such as Al Azhar's Mahmoud Shaltout seem to have presented plausible treatments and understandings of the matter."
-- from a posting above

One would like set out here those "cogent explanations" by those "Muslims" you "have spoken to," including whatever "luminaries such as Al Azha's Mahmoud Shaltout" offer by way of "plausible" treatments and understandings of the matter.

And then one could compare those "cogent explanations" and "plausible treatments" with what Joseph Schacht, C. Snouck Hurgronje, Arthur Jeffrey, Charles-Emmunuel Dufourcq, Henri Lammens, St. Clair Tisdall, Samuel Zwemer, and other Western scholars, studying and writing during the Golden Age of Western Scholarship on Islam, before the Great Inhibition set in. These scholars of Islam, who devoted their entire lives to the subject, never made the mistake of relying merely on personal interchanges with Muslim interlocutoers, for they understood, as all who have had experience in Muslim countries or with Muslims outside those countries comes to understand, Muslim apologists are extraordinarly adept at turning on the charm to Westerners wanting to "find out" all about Islam, and well versed in every kind of taqiyya and tu-quoque, and in presenting demisemihemiquavering fractions of fractions of truths, reflected through prisms that bend or refract crazily (see Snell's Law) the occasional beam of truth, and that in the end leave that Western inquirer quite convinced that he has been wrong, that Muslim apologists have a point, and the Western skeptics and "detractors" are far too severe.

And if those hundreds of Western scholars, writing before the days of Arab money (the same money that supports John Esposito in his fiefdom), writing in the days before everyone was so deeply concerned not to offend, eager to believe such bromides (see George Bush) as "people are the same the whole world over" or "all religions are the same" or "everyone believes the same thing" or (your bromide here), are insufficient to undermine credulity, then perhaps the testimony of the swelling ranks of "defectors" from the Army of Islam, those highly articulate and obviously intelligent people who, having been born into, and grown up within, societies and families suffused with Islam, managed in the West to continue what they might have begun to do even in Muslim societies, that is to compare and contrast and to think clearly, and then, in the freedom of the West, came to openly reject Islam -- such people as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan -- and are quite capable of setting the naive straight about the full meaning of this Total Belief-System.

And finally, there are even those Muslims so "moderate" and so true in their "moderation" that we may describe them as having rejected altogether large portions of Islam, and who often describe themselves as "cultural Muslims" but in reality, we can call them "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, and among their ranks is such a person as the Egyptian-born, naturalized citizen of Italy Magdi Allam, who has recently denounced the viciousness coming out of Al Azhar, the very same Al Azhar where, apparently, the poster above discovered "luminaries such as Al Azhar's Mahmoud Shaltout."

I can well imagine what the unfoolable Magdi Allam would have to say about the apparent impressiveness, to the poster above whose travels, and conversations with many "plausible" and "cogent" Muslims, have led him to take a dim view of the predominant view at Jihadwatch, of Al Azhar. For the criticism of Jihadwatch, based on these "plausible" and "cogent" apologists, requires one not only to dismiss Jihad Watch, but also to dismiss those with views identical to those expressed by the principals of Jihad Watch: it means to deny the truth of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq and a hundred others have to offer as their own testimony and analysis, the product not of talking to this or that "plausible" Muslim described gushingly as a "luminary" but as the product of living deep inside Muslim societies. And the same criticism of Jihad Watch implies, as well, a criticism of those great Western scholars of Islam -- of Arthur Jeffrey, of Henri Lammens, of Snouck Hurgronje, of Joseph Schacht.

And, of course, it also implies a willingness to ignore the reality we see all about us, by those who take the doctrines inculcated by Islam to heart. In other words, we end up where we began, long ago, with the first paragraph of "Islam For Infidels" and the old joke about the man whose wife discovers him in flagrante delicto and who defends himself indignantly: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Posted by: Hugh at January 26, 2008 12:56 PM

Normative binding orthodox Judiasm is based on the authoritiative and immmutable Mosaic code.

This is just a "generic" definition of "orthodoxy". I could just as easily say "Normative binding orthodox Greek paganism is based on the authoritative and immutable Homeric code".

I don't see how you can go from that observation to "Islam and Judaism have a lot in common".

Also, I can state with supreme confidence that normative Orthodox Judaism does not allow for a God-in-human-form messiah in any way, shape, or form.

I guess the Jews who were early converts to Christianity must not have been Orthodox, then, even though the early Christians appealed to them using "Jewish" arguments about the Messiah.

Within any "orthodox" community, there's an element of "selection bias", so what is orthodox isn't static (assuming, as is NOT the case with Islam, but is the case with Judaism, that dissenters from the orthodox view are not killed as apostates). Today's "Orthodox" Jews almost certainly hold some views and engage in practices that Jews of the Mosaic day and age would find non-Orthodox. It's just that there are no "Mosaic" Jews alive to alert them to this fact, as well as the fact that those who believed that orthodoxy lay elsewhere went off to form their own congregations. The claim of orthodoxy is no proof in and of itself of orthodoxy. For that, one must do historical and philological excavation.

From wikipedia (my bold):

"Orthodox Judaism has a range of opinion on the circumstances and extent to which change is permissible. Haredi Jews generally hold that even minhagim (customs) must be retained and existing precedents cannot be reconsidered. Modern Orthodox authorities are generally more inclined to permit limited changes in customs, and some reconsideration of precedent. All Orthodox authorities, however, agree that only later Rabbinical interpretations are subject to reconsideration, and hold that core sources of Divine written and oral law, such as the Torah and the Mishnah, cannot be overridden."

I bolded "overridden" because it is, essentially, ambiguous in meaning, which means that there is even further scope to introduce interpretation into "orthodoxy" in Judaism. If enough people consider that an innovation in Judaic law doesn't "override" an earlier decree, who adjudicates and retains the right to the claim of "orthodoxy"?

You may have learned lots in yeshiva, but legal reasoning doesn't seem to have been a focus. Any good lawyer can see that your definition of "orthodox Judaism", upon which your comparison of Judaism and Islam is made, is lacking in nuance. Islam has "closed the gates of interpretation", meaning that there is no ambiguity and one is forced to select from existing legal rulings, not innovate, as is still possible in Orthodox Judaism.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 12:59 PM

venividivici-
While my time is unfortunately limited to be logged on where I am, I do not think your response is particularly sound.

Orthodox Judaism is a strict set of beliefs and practices. My presentation comes from what I have learned and is certainly no more lacking in nuance than much of the discussion here about Islam appears to be as well.

Briefly, Jews who believe in Christ became CHRISTIANS and departed from Jewish Orthodoxy when they did so. Also, apostates are subject to possible capital punishment, such laws are simply considered suspended for the time being until Torah theocratic law is re-established. It hasn't been abrogated.

Posted by: fairuzfan at January 26, 2008 1:08 PM

Carr has been called out.."put up or shut up" as Robert said. I am putting all my money on shut up, after Carr makes a futile attempt to back up his position..which seems to be in a corner.

Posted by: pismopal at January 26, 2008 1:13 PM

"Likewise, the Stephen Coughlins of the world prefer to interpret the Koran in its most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views. By doing this, the Islamofascist camp is no better than other radicals, and just as wrong. It's never right to claim one correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the religion. In fact, such a narrow view is ALWAYS considered an outlier; not part of mainstream thought.

Furthermore, there's a difference in impact. If you're just Fred living in Muskeegee and you hold this position, it harms no one. If, on the other hand, you're a policy advisor for the DOD, you extremist views can cost lives. That's why Coughlin deserved to be fired.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr"

"Likewise, the Stephen Coughlins of the world prefer to interpret the Koran in its most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views."

.....it seems to me, thatit is the Muslims in power who prefer to interpret the Koran in it most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views (if such a thing exists)....

.....when i see the present day activities of the violent Muslims around the world, the one thing that is very apparent is that they quote from the Koran literally word by word as it was originally written long ago...They refuse to amend , modernize, alter, clarify, or otherwise update the old writings to fit a modern day existence....as I read through the old writings , they appear more like religious military manifesto writings ....(and I take time to look up the definition of religious and find nothing in the description that infers religion is peaceful).....I suppose one could say Muslims are religiously following the instructions for the domination of the world as instructed by the obviouly militant writings in the Koran....
"

"It's never right to claim one correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the religion. In fact, such a narrow view is ALWAYS considered an outlier; not part of mainstream thought." sez you...

...It is a known fact that the violent Muslims consider their interpretion of their scripture (in its own narrow way) to be the only correct interpretation of their activities, and they justify their violent actions while constantly quoting from the Koran (claiming this is all the justification they need for the slaughter of the enemy, the acquiquisition of the land of the enemy, and the subjugation of all NonMuslims (in effect, rendering them slaves and prostitutes for the Islamic Slave Masters), and confiscation of all material wealth owned by those who are killed or captured by the Islamic jihadist raiders)...as time goes on these views are accepted by an ever increasing portion of Mainstream Islamic thought....

....Stephen Coughlin recognized this....The Muslims knew it ....and they were afraid he might just influence the leaders of this country who may not as of yet achieved total dhimmi conversion....

....The Muslims knew it, they feared the possibilites of an Islam knowledgeble NonMuslim leadership, they reacted in the only way a Muslim can....They get rid of the problem....one way or the other....just like they do in Muslim countries....

Ban Muslim immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 26, 2008 1:13 PM

Mr. Spencer,

Given Mr. Carr's penchant for scholastic laziness, I respectfully recommend you also hold him strictly to source documentation, lest he merely produce regurgitated drivel, to which you've responded (i.e. ban him if he plagiarizes without accreditation). That way, he may continue another's debate if he felt your response was insufficient, but not waste, what I consider as precious, your time.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 26, 2008 1:32 PM

Jeffrey Carr: "Likewise, the Stephen Coughlins of the world prefer to interpret the Koran in its most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views….It's never right to claim one correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the religion. In fact, such a narrow view is ALWAYS considered an outlier; not part of mainstream thought."

Then the same could be said about the "liberal" views of Islam which you claim Spencer and Coughlin are ignoring. What is your proof that those liberal views constitute mainstream Islamic thought? You're begging the question here. The question is whether the jihad imperative and the imperative to impose Sharia law (including blasphemy laws and death for apostasy etc) is sufficiently mainstream Islamic thought to argue against the idea that a tiny minority of extremists has hijacked Islam. If you claim that pointing this out constitutes hate speech, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the “liberal” interpretations in fact constitute mainstream Islamic thought (not to be confused with simply pointing out that most Muslims are either ignorant of or ignore what Islam actually teaches, something that Spencer has acknowledged numerous times).

“many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy! ”

If the vast majority of Muslims are really liberals though, as you claim, why would we worry that they could be so easily radicalized? Your concern about this actually undermines the case you are making about “real” Islam.

But let’s just say that pointing out that jihad and Sharia are central to Islam does in fact aid the radicals in their recruitment efforts and so in some sense “aids the enemy”. Which aids the enemy more in the long run – the liberal pretense that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims are liberals like westerners – leading us to keep up high levels of Muslim immigration to the west? Or even if it does aid recruitment efforts in the short run, does pointing out the truth about Islam galvanize westerners to stop Muslim immigration into their countries, cut off the jizya etc etc? Which approach holds the greatest LONG-TERM promise of defending the west against the jihad imperative (jihad here understood in all its senses)?

Posted by: Caroline at January 26, 2008 1:33 PM

Here's the problem, Fairuzfan:

Whatever may be true of a non-Islamic faith -- or whatever someone claims is true of it -- doesn't negate what Islam teaches, including the threat of jihad. Islam is what it is.

The main aim of your argument seems to be to undermine common cause between Christians and Jews against jihadists.

But Islam's goal is to dominate and supersede both Christianity and Judaism. There is not only a common history among Christians and Jews (there's Jesus' Jewish heritage and upbringing, and the fact that Christianity has retained the Jewish scriptures, rather than discarding them in favor of a revisionist document), but there is an undesirable outcome -- subjugation under sharia law -- that both groups have a tremendous stake in avoiding, regardless of the differences between them.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 26, 2008 1:35 PM

In fact, most Muslims are not, since there are vastly more than the mere 70,000 who will not make it into paradise.
Posted by: FredIsinglass

Logically it's correct, but Prophet Mohammad said, hell is of 7 stories:

The 1st story down is created for bad Muslims, where they will be punished for 500 years, after which they may join all good Muslims in paradise. Each Muslim man will be given 72 paradise virgins, who will always revert to their virginity after copulation, where they also will receive more than 300 female attendants. In other words, Muslims, according to Mohammad, can never be in hell for eternity. Then who shall go to hell for eternity? All non-Muslims will be thrown into the 2nd story all the way down to the seventh hell, where they remain to suffer for eternity.

Let me tell this to all of you, who visit here, more interesting things about Muslim unfixable jihad obsession. But first let me finish with the 7-story hell.

The 2nd story down, called Ladha, where the Jews will reside under more intense heat than the floor above;

The 3rd story down, called Hotama, where Christians will suffer more than the Jews;

The 4th story down, called Sair, where Sabians reside; these Sabians were ancient Arab pagans, who built Ka'aba, where they make annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Yes, folks, Hajj and Ramadan are Sabian tradition, which are not originated from Islam; instead, Mohammed borrowed from it to make it widely appealing to his compatriots.

The 5th story down, called Sakar, where the Maji's suffer the torment. If you are a Christian, you should remember that there were three Maji's from the east to bare gifts to baby Jesus at the manger. Maji's were found in pre-Islamic Arabia, the entire Persia, and India. Today they are found in a small part of India. Today's Maji's are called Zoroastrians.

The 6th story down, called Jahin, assigned for idolaters; this is where Mohammed showed his lack of intellect for failing to lump Sabians and Zoroastrians together with other idolaters as Hindus, Buddhists, Animalist, etc

The 7th story down, called Hawjat, which is reserved for Muslim apostates, which they also called hypocrites. These hypocrites include the Mutafiq (hypocrite) and the Taqfir (the excommunicated).

Mohammed forgot many things and forgot to make hell deeper than 7-story because homosexual don't have a place to go, not to mention all other trouble makers we have in this world.

We Christians have our heart in heaven, but Muslims in general don't because Mohammed told them that the upper heaven is totally reserved for 144 prophets and Muslim clerics. The lower heaven is reserved for Jihadists, whom they called Shahids; these jihadists will live with Gene. Another thing unheard of amongst Christians is that Mohammed said, "The entire heaven is an unbridled whore house.

Now, folks, you know why every Muslims wished to go there. As to Muslim women they go there to serve their husbands who have no need of their body. But still that's a better arrangement then previously promised by Mohammed.

To kill your curiosity as to what Mohammed promised previously, I will end this by telling you the rest.

Previously, on the way back from robbing, Mohammed said to his gang, "I saw all Muslim men in paradise, and I looked down; then I saw all women in hell." These did not go well with him, as he sees his followers departed from him one by one, since their newly subjugate foreign beauties could not be there with them. Therefore, when he arrived in Medina, he re-varnished his revelation of the paradise, by telling them that Muslim women may go to paradise to accompany their husbands.

Again, the unmarried women have no place to go.

Posted by: ssa at January 26, 2008 1:50 PM

Carol Iannone said

The enemy is not Islamo-Fascism, but the jihadist elements of Islam itself.

I have to stop and rub my eyes when I read a sentence like that. And those direct, unmincing sentences are appearing more and more often, by more and more writers.

It's working. The message is getting out. Thank you Carol, and thank you Robert, Hugh, and Marisol.

Posted by: special_guest at January 26, 2008 1:55 PM

ssa, I don't see a place in those 7 hells for a lifelong atheist. And I sure don't want to end up in the bordello called Islamic "paradise", raping women for eternity, hanging out with a "god" that mandates beheadings and stonings.

Maybe I'll be left alone, and finally be able to get some peace and quiet.

Posted by: special_guest at January 26, 2008 2:02 PM

"So, to return more strictly to Coughlin's thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end." -- from the article

Reminds me of the movie, "Mars Attacks" where the pointy headed Noam Chomsky type invents a universal translator that only says happy, peaceful things. As the Martians were screaming, the dulcet tones of the translator were putting out Kumbaya phrases, and people who wouldn't even look at BODY LANGUAGE (little children in bomb vests waiving the Holy book of the Religion of Peace, for example)
It would be small satisfaction for me, if, as it was in the movie, we could see the head of the academic floating in a jar, and the dimwitted cluck reporter's head attached to her accessory-dog's body.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at January 26, 2008 2:08 PM

Kudos to Coughlin the Brave.

Looking forward to troll shooting season. Ah, bring on the hunt.

Interesting what happens to a liberal leftist mind when it tries to reason or make choices - it turns to mush.

(A good mind is like a good magnet, and a bad mind repels - Eric Hoffer, - where are you when we need you ?)

Posted by: dgene at January 26, 2008 2:13 PM

Interpretation is a valueless argument. It is based upon the assumption that all is relative. I am not saying that people don't bias what they hear or read. You Mr.Carr are just as guilty as any. It is plain that you are of the first group that Coughlin describes.

Mr. Coughlin gives three interpretations. The evidence based on facts appears to be the third interpretation.

Now, here is the important thing, what is the truth. It is not relative as you argue. Far more lives are at stake on our side if we miss identify the enemy. I would prefer to be very conservative on picking the interpretations. Even if we piss off the whole world.

As has been posted, they depend more on our economy than we do theirs. Not saying it might be hard but we are at war.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at January 26, 2008 2:13 PM

Orthodox Judaism is a strict set of beliefs and practices. My presentation comes from what I have learned and is certainly no more lacking in nuance than much of the discussion here about Islam appears to be as well.

My point is that it isn't as strict as you think it is and it isn't as strict as Islam, so your assertion that there is much in common between Islam and Judaism, vis-a-vis their legal codes and immutability, is inaccurate. "Innovation" is heresy in Islamic law, but not in Orthodox Judaic law.

Briefly, Jews who believe in Christ became CHRISTIANS and departed from Jewish Orthodoxy when they did so.

At this far remove, it's difficult to know what their self-image was, so I'm kind of speculating here, but I don't believe that the considered themselves "Christians" in the same way we would define that. The more likely scenario is that they thought of themselves as "Jews" who were ahead of the game (I think there's historical proof in this also, since there were a number of Christians who repudiated Christianity and went back to Judaism, but they must have thought Paul's message consistent with Judaism on some level, to say nothing of the Apostles themselves), so I don't really see how you can consider my point not made, which is that the Jews who became "Christians" did so on the basis of the very Jewish argument used in support of that position. Christianity didn't come from out of left field, but built upon a prophetic tradition very specific to Judaism.

Also, apostates are subject to possible capital punishment, such laws are simply considered suspended for the time being until Torah theocratic law is re-established. It hasn't been abrogated.

If this were true, one would expect at least some Orthodox Jews to be killing non-Orthodox or secular Jews, unless Orthodox Jews are, paradoxically, non-fervent in their beliefs.

Sorry, Marisol, if I'm continuing a discussion that you think has veered too far off-topic. I do also suspect my interlocutor's motivations, but my own personal preference in internet debate is to engage with ideas, not motivations, hence my continued replies to this fellow.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 2:33 PM

If the US government accepts that third interpretation it has to change all its foreign policy because it considers many Muslim countries as allies.Such a thing never happened historically.
Many states of the past understood Islam as the enemy but at the same time realpolitik even in these times obliged them to have deals with them to face other enemies.
US and Russia still think that they are the principal adversaries and try to undermine each other by using Muslims that are against the other power.What Russia does in Iran US does in the Balkans.
So it is possible that people in strategic positions know the truth but they will not accept it because they want to justify their Muslim alliances for big-power game,and of course for oil.

Posted by: athenian at January 26, 2008 2:58 PM

It looks lie Carr put the peddle to the metal when faced with reality. Mr. Carr: go to this site..

http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 3:06 PM

Mr. Spencer, don't be surprised with what Jeffrey Carr comes back with. He, and those like him, can be very confused as to the meaning and what constitutes 'hate speech'. You may be amazed by their assertions.

Posted by: Sounder at January 26, 2008 3:12 PM

Caroline asked Jeffrey Carr:

"If the vast majority of Muslims are really liberals though, as you claim, why would we worry that they could be so easily radicalized?"

The question represents not merely the view of Carr, but of millions of people throughout the West. This view may, when challenged, be sometimes defended with what appear to be logical arguments, but at bottom it is based upon an illogical and incoherent bundle of feelings, such as

Muslims are just like us / Muslims require special "sensitivity" and deference (because, obviously, they are not "just like us")

Muslims, like all Third World peoples, are regarded more as noble savages, precious Children who can never grow up and must be perpetually coddled by the West, even as noble Animals whose ways and "habitats" must not forever be protected by the West -- which brings to mind another incoherent contradiction of this view:

The West must stop "meddling" with Muslims (and with Third World peoples in general) / The West must coddle and help Muslims (and Third World peoples in general) as our way of restitution for all the Colonialist wrongs we committed and also as a process of absolution for the eternal racism that lurks in our white hearts; etc.

For many Westerners, this view and the psychology behind it is sufficiently based in pathological self-criticism and shame at being Western and white that, as the idea of anti-"Racist" Reverse Racism which structures the view becomes reconfigured to accomodate data about Islam, only conversion to Islam or penitential dhimmitude would be able to assuage the guilt and shame at being Western and white. And finding meaning in the context of a West that for them has become frighteningly devoid of meaning adds another dimension of appeal, either for conversion to Islam (providing an instant -- and of course refreshingly non-Western -- Cosmos of completely regulated meaning), or for dhimmitude (providing meaning in its own way, as you find the place and slot in which you now belong, like those who prefer life in prison or in the Army because of the order they impose, an order the individual for various neurotic reasons cannot find normally).

Posted by: cantor at January 26, 2008 3:51 PM

venividivici,
We should not have to bribe the Russians to stop supporting regimes like Iran. They aren't poor. They have their own problem with Chechnya. They are using these regimes to enhance their own power. George Bush may have seen Putin's soul but from here it looks putrid and we shouldn't be supporting him. Russia is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Their behavior in the last four years indicates that they will do nothing to help the US. Why should we feel obligated to them?
I would rather we took all that money we gave to the Palestinians, Egyptians, etc. and either kept it or gave more to Israel and other non-Muslim countries that are fighting the jihadists.

Posted by: PMK at January 26, 2008 3:57 PM

And finding meaning in the context of a West that for them has become frighteningly devoid of meaning adds another dimension of appeal, either for conversion to Islam (providing an instant -- and of course refreshingly non-Western -- Cosmos of completely regulated meaning), or for dhimmitude (providing meaning in its own way, as you find the place and slot in which you now belong, like those who prefer life in prison or in the Army because of the order they impose, an order the individual for various neurotic reasons cannot find normally).

This is consonant with my thoughts. Just like the early Hebrews went back to worshipping The Golden Calf when given the chance, Westerners fall back into the same servile habits in which they existed until the French and American Revolutions, now that Muslims are giving them a chance to do so.

There is a book called "The Art of Being Ruled" that, for my money, explains the age of mass-politics better than any other work. The author foresaw the infantalization of the masses, the use of news media as a diversionary, rather than informative, device, the rise of the "nanny state", the denigration of the traditionally masculine virtues, the rise of the homosexual movement, and lots else. Written in the mid-20s. He argued in this book that, contrary to the Enlightenment philosophes, the average man does not want freedom and is frightened by it, and that many of the problems of the West are caused by attempting to artificially force this freedom on people who don't want it and don't know what to do with it. It doesn't deal explicitly with Islam, but I think that the narrative he constructs around "power politics" and the rise of fascism and communism, and why those movements became so popular, so quickly, can easily explain why, seemingly overnight, religiously-motivated intrusions into freedom of speech rights that we thought were settled as given are actually accomodated, rather than laughed off as the rantings of lunatics.

The men and women of Western civilization who have fought for freedom have, unfortunately, always been a minority, with most of the rest as "free riders" on those sacrifices or worse, openly hostile to that freedom. That's why one of the first steps to winning this war is the reinstitution of robust treason laws.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 4:13 PM

Marisol - re your reply to 'fairuzfan' -

holed it in one, Marisol, holed it in one.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 26, 2008 4:40 PM

science fiction or science fact anyone know anything about this going on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

Posted by: zionist122 at January 26, 2008 5:25 PM

Cantor - another incoherence in Jeffrey Carr's position is that if the vast majority of Muslims are already liberals (i.e. if the liberal interpretations of Islam in fact constitute "mainstream Islam"), then what of all the liberal Muslims themselves who would self-identify as "reformers" of Islam? If mainstream Islam is already liberal, then what the hell are these self-professed Muslim reformers reforming? Carr's position implies that they are guilty of hate speech as well. So actually, Carr is siding with those who consider the Muslim reformers guilty of hate speech for criticizing Islam and implying that something about Islam needs to be reformed. And of course we know what happens to so many of those reformers. They end up dead or with death fatwas on their heads.

Posted by: Caroline at January 26, 2008 5:25 PM

This man Coughlin is under a gag order as a Pentagon contractor. When his contract expires, he’ll be pissed off, knowledgeable, and on TV. Hopefully he'll write a book about his stint in the government.

He’s much more powerful on the outside.

Posted by: pez at January 26, 2008 6:00 PM

Hate Speech or Truth?

You would have to be blind, deaf & dumb to miss the glaring Truth concerning the evil behind Islam.

All you have to do is read the Qur'an, study Mohammad's life, and learn about the current events of our time.

Sadly, the Truth about Islam is labeled "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.

Posted by: champ at January 26, 2008 6:08 PM

Accusations re "hate", unfairness and even calls for "change" (politicians love that word) are all generic in their appeal. Who's not against hate, unfairness? And we all have our own ideas of "change". Nonspecificity may be good politics, but it's not good logic. Generic terms are often meant to appeal to emotion, but once the accuser is asked to be specific-they evade or run away. Carr is such a phony.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 6:11 PM

Is it too late to get him on the presidential ballot?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 26, 2008 6:23 PM

Here's a guy (Model-T Carr) who accuses someone of being a "hate propagandist" and does not have one specific thing to prove that. He has to off and think about something specific. What an asshole.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 6:25 PM

I suspect Carr's statement:

If, on the other hand, you're a policy advisor for the DOD, you extremist views can cost lives

will be proven true, not in the manner he suggests, but by the end of the relative calm of convenience in Iraq, a nuclear armed Iran, another large scale assault on Israel, or all of the above.

Indeed, someone should have been fired, but not Coughlin.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at January 26, 2008 6:34 PM

Re: "extremist" views

Always these generic terms. "Extremist". However, once the appeals to emotion are by-passed and we get down to logic and specificity (defining terms, etc.)-people such as Carr become vague or run away. If a person is not specific in what they mean by their terms, or not specific in their charges-you can bet that they are full of crap. Robert is specific and always quotes chapter and verse, unlike Carr, who is full of crap.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 6:51 PM

PMK,

We should not have to bribe the Russians to stop supporting regimes like Iran. They aren't poor. They have their own problem with Chechnya. They are using these regimes to enhance their own power.

Again, fair points. I am not saying that in a perfect world we would have to bribe Russia, but we need to stop the flow of weapons and equipment to Muslim countries, since they can't manufacture them themselves, and since money is often the motivation for selling weapons to them, we need to give these suppliers a better deal.

If you don't like my Russia idea, fine. I'm not married to it so much as I am married to the idea that we need to isolate Muslim countries from weapons suppliers.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 6:55 PM

Robert:

Two questions--

1. A theoretical one--
I studied Islamic history in school over 20 years ago and back then at least no one made any bones about jihad being a pillar of Islam and spelling out exactly what it meant. Being, Israeli I can see for myself the reality as well. Inherent in both opinions 1 and 2 is a strong form of narcissism [i.e., "They MUST be just like me because, well, isn't everybody?!"]. Do you know how long these attitudes have been about?

2. A practical one--
I fully grant opinion 3. Islam cannot be uprooted or eliminated by outsiders [it's too pervasive an ideology in too much of the world] and is extremely resistant to change from within even if there were significant numbers of people "within" willing to try it. What then can be done PRACTICALLY? For example, as an Israeli, I favor treating the "Palestinians" as a hostile popular engaged in acts of war and that our country should fight them as a war to total victory pursued by total war. Fine. We can follow it with a real "occupation" post-WWII-style but then what? Must we defeat the entire Muslim world similarly?!

Posted by: MosheC at January 26, 2008 7:08 PM

"While some holders of the 2nd view may find it productive to work with the minority of holders of the 3rd view (you, Horowitz, Epstein, etc.), in spite of their differences, many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy!

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 10:37 AM"

Can you specify what PRECISELY is meant by "your hate propaganda" [I mean specific statement of "hate"]?

Can you provide examples of jihadists "[using this hate propaganda] to fuel their radicalization efforts"?

Can you define "radicalization efforts" and delineate how precisely this "radicalization" aberrates from the norms of Islam as established by Islamic jurisprudence and/or Chadith?

In short, you say "If that's true,..." but can you provide any substantive evidence that it is?

What precisely is that "U.S. mission"? [Please no drivel reminiscent of Kipling's "white man's burden".]

What if opinion 3 really IS correct, what does this do to your "U.S. mission"?

In either case, as an Israeli, why should I or any other person who isn't an American support this "U.S. mission"?

Posted by: MosheC at January 26, 2008 7:28 PM

"Also, it seems rather odd that folks automatically lump Judaism in with Christianity in opposition to Islam when, I think, any reasonable, balanced, objective fair-minded review of the faiths would show that Judaism has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity. Among these commonalities would be a normative, immutable set of authoritarian theocratic laws that govern civil society and cannot be intellectually reconciled with what the West has now developed as standard notions of constitutional republicanism, including basic freedoms, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Posted by: fairuzfan at January 26, 2008 11:33 AM "

As a charedi Jew [i.e., an "Orthodox" Jew], I agree that in SOME ways we have much more in common with Islam than Christianity but the differences are important.

1. Jewish Law FORBIDS trying to force it on others-- even non-Observant Jews.

2. Our law states we must abide by the laws of the country we are in so long as these laws do not persecute us [such as Nazi-era laws did].

3. Civil rights and civil liberties are very MUCH a part of Jewish law. For example, I have taught in a couple of purely secular U.S. universities while dressing as an obviously daati Jew. Feminists usually assumed my views and Torah were discriminatory against women. Yet when they confronted me about it, they invariably discovered that Jewish law is often more protective of women's rights even than Western secular law.

I could go on but fail to see the point. You are as ignorant and prejudiced about Judaism and Jews as you are about everything else.

Posted by: MosheC at January 26, 2008 7:45 PM

Moshe C: "What then can be done PRACTICALLY?"

I find it fascinating that people ask this question as if the west hadn't largely deterred Islam for many centuries. To answer the question of what to do "practically" - how about looking back at what westerners did for literally centuries to deter Islam, even though Islam was THEN precisely as it is NOW.

So what did our many forefathers do THEN to deter Islam?

Well, for starters, they lived in a pre-PC environment and so they overtly recognized and spoke the truth about Islam and felt no guilt in doing so. I guess when a sufficient number of your children have been kidnapped and a sufficient number of your women have been kidnapped and hauled off and sold into slavery, you're not too likely to mince words.

Having recognized what Islam was, and the mortal threat it posed, obviously for many centuries, Muslims were persona non grata in the west. Look back just 50 years - and especially in the US before the 1965 Immigration Act, sponsored by Ted Kennedy, that opened American borders to a a liberal quota system, as opposed to the previous immigration policies that restricted immigration to the US to obviously cultural compatible citizens.

As far as Israel in particular is concerned, Hugh has written many posts involving the Islamic concept of "darura" - necessity - which demonstrates that Muslims can live with the status quo of a more powerful Jewish state so long as they have no practical means to defeat it. But as long as the means exist to triumph, then Islam demands that they try to do so. Which is why it's so important for Israel to maintain its strength so that Muslims have a theologically grounded excuse for remaining quiescent - a concept that applies to all infidels seeking a practical means to deter Islam.

Islam is what it is. It's essence is expressed in the parable of the scorpion and the frog. Parables exist for a reason - because they express some basic human truths. Islam shouldn't be any harder for the west to defeat than it has been for 1400 years, provided that westerners merely continue what they were already doing for centuries - i.e. recognizing the nature of the scorpion for what it is, rather than living in some recently concocted liberal fantasy world.

Posted by: Caroline at January 26, 2008 8:00 PM

Robert Spencer’s challenge to me (and everyone else who has ever called him on his hate speech) was as follows:

“please produce one false statement I have ever made about Islam, the doctrine of jihad, or any related matter.”

Robert, here is my response:

In your book Islam Unveiled, you wrote:
“Jihad is a permanent war that excludes the idea of peace but authorizes temporary truces to the political situation (muhadana). “

Also, in your book Onward Muslim Soldiers, you wrote:

“The goal of jihad is thus the incorporation of non-Muslims into Muslim society, either by conversion or submission."

Now here are two authentic Islamic scholars whose writings on Jihad contradict your own.

1. Douglas Streusand:
"The term 'jihad' usually means Jihad fi sabil Allah -- "striving in the path of God," says Streusand." Simply by its very definition, striving in the path of God is a good thing to do.
The question is not whether or not jihad is a good thing, because for a Muslim, jihad is a good thing. The question is whether the activity that they are undertaking should be classified as jihad."

"The term in Islamic law which best describes the activities of al-Qaida is hirabah, which originally meant brigandage, but has a more general meaning as sinful warfare."

- Douglas Streusand (in an interview with NPR)

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6392989

Douglas Streusand has been Associate Professor of International Relations at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College since 2005. His publications include The Formation of Mughal Empire (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), “Managing the Iranian Threat to Iranian Sea Commerce Diplomatically,” in Getting Ready for a Nuclear Ready Iran, ed. Henry Sokolski and Patrick Clawson (Carlisle, Pa.: Strategic Studies Institute, 2005), available at http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf, and more than thirty other articles and reviews. He received his BA in History from Duke University in 1976 and Ph.D. in Islamic History from the University of Chicago in 1987.) As reported in an interview with NPR’s Guy Raz

2. Afroz Ali:

“I wanted to quickly explain the concept of Jihad, as mentioned in the Islamic Holy Book, the Qur’an. Firstly, I put forth to you as a strong assertion that nowhere in the Qur’an does God refer to Jihad as Holy War. Holy War, not referred to in the Qur’an at all, is Harb ul-Muqaddasa. Secondly, the Qur’an refers to Jihad as a concept, around 60% of the time, to a period when any form of fighting was prohibited during the Messengership of Muhammad, upon whom be peace. This is usually referred to as the Makkan Revalations. Thirdly, and which I would like to spend a little time on, is the use of the term Jihad in the Qur’an in connection with the use of force as a conditional permissibility. The Qur’an uses the term “Qitaal” to refer to the use of force, to fight. Not once has jihad been used to suggest this, and only in two places, in the same sentence with Qital or fighting. It is quite clear, therefore that in the use of force Quital, is the struggle to get it right – Jihad.

[9:12-16]
I am not going to go through the whole set of verses, but let me highlight the key points:
Verse 12 refers to those who are undermining Muslims in their daily lives and in their worship;
Fighting these people is given permission with a clear directive – to fight the leaders of those who are suppressing, not the general public or to cause collateral damage;
But a very important move occurs from verse 14-16, that one must strive, Jihad, to uphold themselves with dignity and seek protection from God, in their daily endeavours.

Finally, I also wanted to highlight that Jihad is referred to in the Qur’an more directly to other aspects of human existence, far more directly than to the conditional permissibility to use force. These aspects of Jihad include:
- Striving of, the Jihad of parents as nurturer of their offsprings [31:14-15]
- Striving for collective benefit of society, including refugees [8:72]
- Striving against selfish desires [9:24]
- Striving to learn and spread beneficial knowledge [9:122]”

Written by Afroz Ali of the al-Ghazzali Centre for Islamic Sciences and Human Development
Source: http://www.alghazzali.org/resources/articles/jihad.pdf

There you go, Robert. You have clearly and consistently mis-represented and falsely defined the word "jihad", as demonstrated by direct quotes from the Qu'ran and two authentic scholars of Islamic studies, which probably doesn't suprise anyone since you have no academic standing in Islamic studies and nothing published in any peer-reviewed journals.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 8:10 PM

MosheC said

We can follow it with a real "occupation" post-WWII-style but then what? Must we defeat the entire Muslim world similarly?!

Try turning the question around: can you come up with a scenario in which the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims can be avoided? A scenario in which Muslims accept Israel's right to exist, or in which they accept the U.S.'s and Europe's (or Thailand's, or Russia's, or Ethiopia's, etc.) right to have a society that does not follow the strictures of sharia? Is there any way to placate Dar al-Islam?

I'm not being facetious; I keep trying to come up with something, but haven't been successful yet. The catch is that it has to be realistic, not just wishful thinking. That's the catch.

Posted by: special_guest at January 26, 2008 8:23 PM

One more thing when it comes to PRACTICAL solutions to dealing with Islam.

WHEN YOU'RE IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING!

How's that for a cliche? But cliches exist for an obvious reason.

When it comes to the problem of Islam, the most obvious "practical" solution is to stop Muslim immigration to the West.

How many times do we have to say it?

Seriously?

Posted by: Caroline at January 26, 2008 8:26 PM

MosheC said about orthodox Jewish belief:

"Our law states we must abide by the laws of the country we are in so long as these laws do not persecute us"

Problem is, Muslims use similar language to justify their supremacist bellicosity, since in Islam they have a tradition of not seeing much of a difference between "persecution" and "disorder" (both are translations of the one word Fitna which in the Koran justifies violent actions by Muslims). "Disorder" could be, and has been, construed as the mere presence of Infidels prospering around, or amid, Muslims. And by prospering, Infidels are flaunting their blasphemous laws and in effect snubbing their nose at Allah and Mohammed, and that just cannot stand, in the Muslim mind. It must be undone, by hook or by crook, so that Islam may dominate and not be dominated.

Jewish culture seems to have a much mellower view of assimilation with the laws of the "goyim" than does Islamic culture.

Posted by: cantor at January 26, 2008 8:39 PM

Caroline said

How many times do we have to say it?

Until we have a President who will start to do it. In other words, we're going to be saying it for many years to come. Dar al-Islam knows this is a marathon, not a sprint. We've got a long ways to go.

Posted by: special_guest at January 26, 2008 8:39 PM

I’ve always thought that Islamo-Fascism was the best term to use, the one most easily understood by the man in the street.

Explain to the average Joe the jihadists’ desire to resurrect the Caliphate, and you’ll be met with scorn. It doesn’t matter how many times you show them the speeches, the literature, the sold-out Khilafah conferences - most will think you mad to believe it. Show them passages from the Koran, and they’ll throw back passages from the Bible. Tell them about da’wa, and they’ll bring up Christian proselytising.

But Fascism - with a big "F" - is something they can understand. Fascism implies oppression, subjugation, violence and control.

Islamo-Fascism needs to be explained as another example of tyranny based upon The Idea. This form of tyranny - whether the idea was Nazi racial theory or Communist doctrine - left an indelible stain on 20th Century history, and is another easy concept for the layman to understand.

We need to be able to explain in simple, easily understandable terminology, that Islam’s version of “The Idea” is Jihad - perpetual struggle, both violent and non-violent, waged against non-believers, until Islam dominates - and that it is every bit as real and threatening as the ideologies that scarred the 20th Century.

Nobody suggests that World War II happened because a "tiny minority of extremists" in Thirties Germany misunderstood Hitler’s Idea. They accept that the Idea itself - that of a master race destined to rule mankind - was doomed to cause human misery and conflict.

Likewise, an Islam that preserves Jihad as its Idea will always be in conflict with every other belief system and form of government that it comes into contact with.

Posted by: Matamoros at January 26, 2008 10:02 PM

This has been said before but it doesn't hurt to repeat it now. Two of the main differences between Judeo-Christian beliefs and those of the middle east now codified under Islam.

Seperation of church and state, in the first covenant it is mentioned as the king being rebuked for attempting to do the office of the priest, Saul and Nathan. In the second covenant it is typified by the teaching of "render unto Caesar" and the writings of the rabbi saul of tarsus.

Within JC man often questions, bargains and interracts with God, in Islam as in its former eastern religious precursors alla may not be questioned any more than the typical middle eastern king could have been questioned.

Though Mahomet borrowed and revised many biblical stories they were so atrociously related that scholars from the Musselmen have had to blame the differences upon perfidious Jewish scribes to save the delusion that Islam is in some sort of line of religious succession.

Where I think Islam does have more in common with the rabbinical Judaism of today, which is quite dissimilar with the levitical and aaronic Judaism of yore, are the legalisms, the food laws and such, which also remind me of that famous quote of Pythagoras, "wretches, how long shall you eat beans?"

Posted by: stickman at January 26, 2008 10:03 PM

Carr's post initially got snagged in the system (lots of links will do that), but it's now above for everyone to read (8:10pm).

If I may indulge myself in posting a Wiki link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

The alternative to anecdotal evidence ("But there's this guy that said...") and appealing to the supposed authority of the source ("...and he's pretty important so he must be right") would be to consult the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. But I don't think you'd like what they have to say about armed jihad, Mr. Carr.

And that's just one reason we have a problem, Houston. Another is the ahadith, and the fact that those considered most reliable by Muslim scholars record Muhammad as teaching and exemplifying jihad as armed conquest and subjugation of unbelievers.

Certainly there are more. But since I let the comment through the system I couldn't resist sharing a few thoughts.

Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 26, 2008 10:16 PM

Shaeffers definition of our enemy is frustrating. He and Daniel Pipes keep walking around the "common sense" definition of our enemy.

Our enemy is Islamism. In simple terms which is general knowledge by posters I read over and over on this site, Our Enemy is Islam. It is not a selection process of individuals. Its not individuals its an ideology its an ISM(Doctrine; theory; system of principles)its Islamism or simply Islam.

DIHIMMI reigns still even with the best of them.

Posted by: paulc37 at January 26, 2008 10:42 PM

Dear JihadWatch

MEGA, mega dittos, JW & JihadWatchers! By the time all of you (you too, darcy), there won't be anything left of Mr. Carr, his spurious reasoning, or his surly persona for ME to pick from his carcass! Pul-leeze, Please, Robert, Hugh, Marisol, and Gang, leave some better scraps for me to gnaw on, OK? (If only I had a behind-screen image consultant, like Al Gore, then I, too, would be an alpha male.

It AMAZES me--Jeffrey Carr believes that a sacred text--in this case, a sacred text held to be the product of direct, plenary inspiration, the eternal, preexistent, literally verbatim revealed word of Allah--CANNOT, in its parts or content, have an ultimately, inherently, and primarily LITERAL sense. As with much else, Jeffrey Carr knows little about scriptural or literary criticism; how else can someone approach a serious question so absolutely subjectively and relativistically? Sacred texts have no intrinsic meaning? ABSURD!

So, Jeff "Champion of Truth and Tolerance" Carr lacks objectivity and other analytical tools. He also is anything but clever or ironic to throw the descriptive term "Islamofascist" back at its opponents. He only shows that he is a useful idiot to enemies of freedom who wish to shift attention away from themselves through smears and projection.

Posted by: John C at January 26, 2008 11:16 PM

Dear JihadWatch

MEGA, mega dittos, JW & JihadWatchers! By the time all of you (you too, darcy), there won't be anything left of Mr. Carr, his spurious reasoning, or his surly persona for ME to pick from his carcass! Pul-leeze, Please, Robert, Hugh, Marisol, and Gang, leave some better scraps for me to gnaw on, OK? (If only I had a behind-screen image consultant, like Al Gore, then I, too, would be an alpha male.

It AMAZES me--Jeffrey Carr believes that a sacred text--in this case, a sacred text held to be the product of direct, plenary inspiration, the eternal, preexistent, literally verbatim revealed word of Allah--CANNOT, in its parts or content, have an ultimately, inherently, and primarily LITERAL sense. As with much else, Jeffrey Carr knows little about scriptural or literary criticism; how else can someone approach a serious question so absolutely subjectively and relativistically? Sacred texts have no intrinsic meaning? ABSURD!

So, Jeff "Champion of Truth and Tolerance" Carr lacks objectivity and other analytical tools. He also is anything but clever or ironic to throw the descriptive term "Islamofascist" back at its opponents. He only shows that he is a useful idiot to enemies of freedom who wish to shift attention away from themselves through smears and projection.

Posted by: John C at January 26, 2008 11:16 PM

As I said, by the time all of you are done with Mr. Carr, there won't be anything left of his spurious reasoning or surly persona for ME to pick from his carcass!

Pul-leeze, please, Robert, Hugh, Marisol, and Gang, leave some better scraps for me to gnaw on--OK?

(Fierce, omnivorous Wild Slobbovian Woolly Pigs will probably have better pickings than I'll find.)

Posted by: John C at January 26, 2008 11:42 PM

Just for the record, Mr. Carr has previously been schooled on argumentum ad hominem and appeal to authority as logical fallacies. Pretty thick skull from my perspective. www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019534.php

Mr. Carr has unwittingly (though in his mind perhaps vicariously) made his initial foray into Qur'anic interpretation. He has now not only allowed to be asked, but begs numerous questions.(Apologies to pythagorus from another thread.)

Mr. Carr, you should have taken well over a month to respond, and brought something substantive, thoughtful or even esoteric. Instead you decided to swing early and wildly, as though you would surely reach the fence.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 26, 2008 11:54 PM

Ms. Seibold: Anecdotal evidence is hearsay evidence. There is nothing definable as hearsay in my reply. I quote the primary sources.

You, on the other hand, have done exactly that when you wrote: "the fact that those considered most reliable by Muslim scholars record Muhammad as teaching and exemplifying jihad as armed conquest and subjugation of unbelievers." That is what is known as "hearsay" because you provide no original sources that say what you claim they say.

Then you seemed to infer that I'm "appealing to authority". It's hard to tell because you didn't clearly announce that logical fallacy. You sort of sputtered it out. Nevertheless, if you did mean to claim it against my argument, then be aware that "the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument." (See Wikipedia entry for "Appeal to Authority").

Gee, I hope that Robert has better debaters on his payroll than you, Ms. Seibold. That was too easy.

And John C. Your post sounds hysterical. Get a grip.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 11:55 PM

find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view),

Mr. Carr, just what is the US Mission, in your view?

All these months of calling Robert names and those week arguments are all you can come up with?

By the way, where did you practice Coast Guarding?

I knew a man who was a Col. Reserve in the US Coast Guard and was serving in Frankfurt W. Germany in the mid 80's. They did there drills on the Main River.

And I am so tired of hearing that you Christians and Jews are just as bad.
It comes down to this. We don't Kill people over our differences in theology, Muslims do. And the numbers of incidents and victims has gone way beyond the 'tiny' minority stage.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 26, 2008 11:57 PM

Oh Mr Carr. Poor poor Mr Carr.

"Hate Propaganda".

That's a pretty potent claim. The bigger the claim the more persuasive the evidence has to be, as they say. And surely, considering Mr Spencers prolific written output, all easily found in bookshops and the net, you can find something, anything, to nail Mr Spencer good 'n' proper.

As Mr Spencer has pointed out, he's written extensivly on Islam, here, in countless articles and books.

And as I'm sure that Mr Carr would never but ever make wildly inaccurate claims that defame a person's name, the famously resolute and resolutely famous Mr Carr must have collected over the years, literally hundreds, nay thousands, of damning quotes from Mr Spencer.

Not only hateful thoughts but with the purpose of propaganda in mind.

So, when push finally comes to shove, what does le researcher extraordinaire Mr Carr come up with?

Cue drum roll and phalanx of trumpets a la Hollywood 1950's blockbuster

Well, his quotes from Mr Spencer are

a"Jihad is a permanent war that excludes the idea of peace but authorizes temporary truces to the political situation (muhadana)."

and

b"The goal of jihad is thus the incorporation of non-Muslims into Muslim society, either by conversion or submission."

That's it, folks. Read 'em and weep, guys and guyettes.

That's the best Mr Carr can do.

Mr Carr, you've been trawling over Mr Spencer's work for years, sifting through his books, speeches, articles, comments on JW, and the best you can do is these TWO -count 'em, ONE plus ONE - TWO sentences.

My!

Surely you've got better ammo than that to use.

Say it ain't so Mr Carr. Say it ain't so.

Your claims fail so spectacularly it's almost tempting to claim that you and Robert are in it together. Set up this hapless schmuck who claims to have evidence of Mr Roberts hate-filled agenda. Watch as Mr Carr makes wild claim after wild claim, then giggle when the daft banana trips up on his own scraping knuckles.

The only other possible explanations for singularly failing to come up with Mr Spencer's hate propaganda quotes are

a) Mr Spencers's never made any
b) You're a lazy ignoramus
c) a) and b)

I'm going with c)

Posted by: ewha1 at January 27, 2008 12:01 AM

"I quote the primary sources."

My God, Mr. Carr, how ignorant are you??

Do you even know what a primary source is???

That's all Mr. Spencer does is quote primary sources. You quoted modern secondary (at best) authors. Do you know anything about historical Islamic jurisprudence??

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 12:07 AM

If Mr. Carr's argument is with that point of view exemplified by Stephen Carr's 333-page thesis, why, then, doesn't write a thesis of his own in rebuttal, and submit it to peer review? And just who are Mr. Carr's peers, anyway? It seems to us that he has not established his own authority and credentials, yet feels confident to question Robert's and Stephen Coughlin's. How curious.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 12:07 AM

If Mr. Carr's argument is with that point of view exemplified by Stephen Carr's 333-page thesis, why, then, doesn't he write a thesis of his own in rebuttal, and submit it to peer review? And just who are Mr. Carr's peers, anyway? It seems to us that he has not established his own authority and credentials, yet feels confident to question Robert's and Stephen Coughlin's. How curious.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 12:08 AM

"Gee, I hope that Robert has better debaters on his payroll than you, Ms. Seibold. That was too easy."

When all else fails, declare victory. What a schmuck.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 12:11 AM

John-- Oh, there's plenty to pick at.

Indeed, hoping Robert will forgive me for jumping in on something I know he could shred more handily than I, I'd like to take issue with a few more things.

In particular:

Finally, I also wanted to highlight that Jihad is referred to in the Qur’an more directly to other aspects of human existence, far more directly than to the conditional permissibility to use force. These aspects of Jihad include: - Striving of, the Jihad of parents as nurturer of their offsprings [31:14-15] - Striving for collective benefit of society, including refugees [8:72] - Striving against selfish desires [9:24] - Striving to learn and spread beneficial knowledge [9:122]”

34:14-15 says:

And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and in years twain was his weaning: (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to thy parents: to Me is (thy final) Goal.

"But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did."

It says to be good to your parents. But the only parental striving mentioned isn't exactly what Allah is looking for.

Now, I get to level at Mr. Carr something we're accused of all the time-- taking things out of context:

8:72, in the chapter entitled "The Spoils of War" says:

Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid,- these are (all) friends and protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) Allah seeth all that ye do.

Clearly, the protection of fellow believers is at issue. But 8:73 makes it even clearer:

The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless ye do this, (protect each other), there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief.

This underlines the division between believer/unbeliever. Care for refugees? If they're fellow Muslims, or if they belong to a group who had a treaty with the Muslims. (This would also be a good time to look up naskh, or abrogation, and the legal effect of the Verse of the Sword, 9:5, on treaties).

Now, speaking of context, here's 9:24:

Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious.

And 9:25:

Assuredly Allah did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.

What is specifically at issue here is choosing to join Muhammad and Co. in jihad. Armed jihad. When you click on the link, keep on rolling to 9:29.

Lastly, 9:122 (I've been pasting the Yusufali translation, but Pickthall is clearer here. And of course, you can compare among 3 translations by clicking on the link):

And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware.

Context, context, context. Two can play that game. In fact, read all of Sura 9, and-- seriously-- check out Robert's Blogging the Qur'an (last tab on the right at the top of the page) for citations of mainstream Islamic commentary on such matters, including detailed discussions of Suras 8 and 9.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 27, 2008 12:11 AM

Carr-- I'm appealing to a broad corpus of works and traditions on Islamic jurisprudence (the four schools in Sunni Islam being Hanbali, Shafi, Malilki, and Hanafi). You're citing two guys.

And you're not citing primary sources. If you want to cite primary sources, read your Qur'an and ahadith, and for a strong secondary source, commentary like Tafsir al-Jalalayn. And there are always traditional biographies of Muhammad -- the Sirah Rasul Allah.

T-a-J is the work of devout Muslims, as are most translations of the Qur'an and ahadith, like those at the USC Muslim Student Assoc. site linked above.

And I'm doing this for free. No one's paying me. I just feel strongly enough that your argument is weak-- very weak-- to respond on my own.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 27, 2008 12:17 AM

fairuzfan,

last time I checked this site was called Jihad Watch.

Its not Torah Watch or Bible Watch and you are not the first Muhammedan trying to deflect from the issues, regardless of your 'yeshiva studies'- we have nothing in common.

Unless your kumbayah spiel goes something like this: "we can't mix fire & water, but we need fire to cook water, and because we all cook with water and we use fire to do that we all have something in common"- you're trying to put us back to sleep.

Thanks for trying.

You failed!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 27, 2008 12:19 AM

Dear Mr. Carr,

Thank you for condescending to take notice of me--very sporting!

Hysterical, indeed. ROFLMAO--wait'll Darcy digs into you like a harpy from the depths of Jahanna! LOL!

If you bait and insult, what kind of reception do you expect--if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Infernal Reaches of Hades

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 12:22 AM

Now I know who "Naseem" is...it can only be Jeff Carr.

Posted by: pismopal at January 27, 2008 12:26 AM

John C,

Speaking of condescensions, Carr is not only read, but is quoting from the Wiki link I gave him (here), and still doesn't get it!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 12:28 AM

Ms. Seibold, you're the News Editor for JihadWatch, a commercial site from whence Robert Spencer derives a portion of his income and you're working for free? That's what I was referring to when I mentioned getting paid - News editor, not debater. I doubt anyone would pay you to do the latter, but you never know.

Regarding your effort to quote the Quran in support of your misunderstanding of the word "Jihad", I doubt you've had any formal education in the religion of Islam, have you? No, of course you haven't. Neither has Robert Spencer. And neither have I. That's why I prefer to let authentic academic scholars and qualified experts in Islam and Islamic law provide those insights. There's nothing wrong with "appeal to authority" when the alternative is untrained speculation.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 27, 2008 12:33 AM

Nope, I show up and do my work as a News Editor for free as well. I love it that much; it's absolutely not about money. But oh, how I wish it were my "real job," so that I could dedicate my time that fully to it.

And as far as appealing to authority is concerned, who are you going to believe, the apologists, or your lyin' eyes when you look at the content of the texts themselves?

It's not rocket science.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 27, 2008 12:41 AM

"There's nothing wrong with "appeal to authority" when the alternative is untrained speculation."

Like I said, still doesn't get it.

"That's why I prefer to let authentic academic scholars and qualified experts in Islam and Islamic law provide those insights."

The existence of people like yourself with obstinant opacity (and a peculiarly undisciplined, gullible reception of argumentum ad populum) is why I prefer to let the primary Islamic sources (these are really, really old books, Mr. Carr) speak for themselves.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 12:41 AM

"Do you even know what a primary source is??? "

That is the first thing I noticed also, perhaps he does not really know. I think it would be better for his integrity that he really didn't know.

Not that integrity derived from concrete actions has much cache with our pomo multicultis. They usually derive their notions of virtu from identity, which would make a gay islamic nihilistic atheistic lesbian with transgender issue the 400 pound gorilla of morality.

Posted by: stickman at January 27, 2008 12:42 AM

And further to what Concerned Citizen said, one need not appeal to authority when it is possible to judge ideas on their merits.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 27, 2008 12:45 AM

I know that Mr. Carr is more his bellicose self, and wont to launch his broadsides after Robert has retired for the night.

Do deign to take a dig or two at me, Mr. Carr--it's most endearing. Reminds me of the people I love. For example, take my wife--PLEASE!

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 12:45 AM

Even the authorities quoted are merely paraphrasing the primary sources. If war is deception at best the boy has shot himself in the foot.

Posted by: stickman at January 27, 2008 12:47 AM

Oops. I meant to refer to Stephen Coughlin's 333-page thesis.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 12:58 AM

Stickman, there are several ways to define primary source. I used it here to mean original research by an authoritative source.

And your depiction of the "400 pound gorilla of morality" only applies if that person lives in the middle of the Bible Belt. On either coast, she'd just be another consumer.

Concerned Citizen, as I said to Ms. Seibold, go back to Wikipedia and read the limitations on Appeal to Authority. To wit, "the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument."

Aunt Bea, "where did I do my Coast Guarding"?? At ComSta Portsmouth/NMN.

John C. - you're hysterical, but Darcy is flat out nuts. Ask PatagonianPlato.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 27, 2008 1:05 AM

"Words mean just what we wish them to mean, no more no less"

Posted by: stickman at January 27, 2008 1:08 AM

Number 1: I gave you the link, you're still missing the point of the 99% of it you didn't like.
Number 2: To wit, the converse is also true, an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion true...wait, that's the original fallacy. How come we all get that, and you don't??

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 1:15 AM

So proof of Mr Spencer's "hate propaganda" are where?

Posted by: ewha1 at January 27, 2008 1:18 AM

"there are several ways to define primary source"

That is just sooo fascinating. I've never heard that before. Do tell more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

"In historiography, library science, and other areas of scholarship, a primary source (also called original recording) is a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. Also, a primary source could be a first-handed source from the past including diaries or artifacts. Primary sources are described as those sources closest to the origin of the information or idea under study. Primary sources are said to provide researchers with "direct, unmediated information about the object of study." They may contain original research or new information not previously published elsewhere. They have been distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. They serve as an original source of information or new ideas about the topic."

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 1:23 AM

Here, 'Jeffery Carr'- formal education in the religion of Islam, for you:

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/09/land-of-smiles.html

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 27, 2008 1:25 AM

ConcerncedCitizen: About Mr Carr's understanding of what a primary source is. I know, It's like watching an episode the "The Office": Cringe making and hilarious, all at the same time.

Posted by: ewha1 at January 27, 2008 1:28 AM

ewha1,

I envy the stamina of Robert, Hugh, and Marisol whose lives must seem like the movie "Groundhog Day" having to deal with trolls like Carr. Everyday, the same stupid arguments, as though no previous refutation had occurred.

Jeeez, sheik, some of us might have gotten some sleep tonight.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 1:43 AM

Carr - you remind me of the Reverend Jim Sutter. Do you know him?

Posted by: champ at January 27, 2008 1:52 AM

Concerned Citizen, shame on you for editing your Wikipedia definition. Here, I'll finish it for you, you silly goof:

"Primary and secondary, however, are relative terms, and any given source may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.[6]

"Source Classification. Many sources can be considered either primary and secondary, depending on the context in which they are used.[7] Moreover, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual,[8] so that precise definitions are difficult to make."

By the way, when you read your English translation of the Qu'ran, you aren't reading a primary source. You're reading someone else's translation of a primary source. But let's go back to your favorite reference - the Wikipedia (Qur'an translations):

"Translation of the Quran has always been a problematic and difficult issue in Islamic theology. Since Muslims revere the Qur'an as miraculous and inimitable (i'jaz al-Qur'an), they argue that the Qur'anic text can not be reproduced in another language or form. Furthermore, an Arabic word may have a range of meanings depending on the context, making an accurate translation even more difficult.[1]

According to modern Islamic theology, the Qur'an is a revelation very specifically in Arabic, and so it should only be recited in the Arabic language. Translations into other languages are necessarily the work of humans and so, according to Muslims, no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original. Since these translations necessarily subtly change the meaning, they are often called "interpretations." For instance, Pickthall called his translation The Meaning of the Glorious Koran rather than simply The Koran.

The task of translation is not an easy one; some native Arab-speakers will confirm that some Qur'anic passages are difficult to understand even in the original Arabic. A part of this is the innate difficulty of any translation; in Arabic, as in other languages, a single word can have a variety of meanings. There is always an element of human judgment involved in understanding and translating a text. This factor is made more complex by the fact that the usage of words has changed a great deal between classical and modern Arabic. As a result, even Qur'anic verses which seem perfectly clear to native speakers accustomed to modern vocabulary and usage may not represent the original meaning of the verse."

This is why Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, and the rest of the self-annointed "experts" are shunned by actual scholars. They have no academic training in Islam, no peer reviewed publications, and don't even speak Arabic, the only language that the Qur'an should be read in according to the religion that these people claim "expertise" in. Anyone with even a scintilla of intellectual honesty has to admit the absurdity of it all.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 27, 2008 1:54 AM

champ,

On his blog, Jeffrey Carr linked to Sutter's "HateWatch" pdf as an authoritative source of information about Robert Spencer and JihadWatch!

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 1:55 AM

The third view says that there is indeed a problem with Islam itself, that even if only a minority of Muslims will ever take up jihad, most Muslims know that that is mandated by their religion and they do support it in belief and sometimes financially.

That majority of Muslims, many living right here in America, who willingly deny what Islam really teaches-despite what we can read for ourselves-is as much a threat to this country as their jihadist brethren.

American Muslims, in particular, are contemptible, because they refuse to admit that so much of their foreign belief system is antithetical to the United States Constitution and that it simply cannot be fully practiced in this country.

Jihadists strap on suicide belts.

And most Muslims, despite what CAIR and other Muslim 'Civil Rights' groups, and perhaps even Commander Islam, know why they do.

Thank you for what you do, Major Coughlin.

Posted by: PRCS at January 27, 2008 1:55 AM

C = Cannot

A = Answer

R = Robert

R = Reasonably

Posted by: champ at January 27, 2008 1:58 AM

Wow, just wow after reading Carr's truly lame reply to Spencer's challenge.

He can't even use primary sources and when confronted by this he slinks off to some po-mo corner out by asserting that no one here including himself is a authority on Islam. So end of discussion.

G-d what a sorry appeal to authority.

He never wanted debate at all. He justs wants to shut down discussion on Islam period.

What authoritarian schmuck and credulous boob to boot!

If this is the best the Muslim apologists have to offer, well its like sandblasting a cracker.

Posted by: waltc at January 27, 2008 2:03 AM

Carr,

I quote Wikipedia to you because I'm sure you are relieved by its 4th grade reading level.

""Primary and secondary, however, are relative terms, and any given source may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.[6]"

[6] Kragh, Helge (1989), An Introduction to the Historiography of Science, Cambridge University Press, p. 121, ISBN 0521389216, ("[T]he distinction is not a sharp one. Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for."); Delgadillo, Roberto & Lynch, Beverly (1999), "Future Historians: Their Quest for Information", College & Research Libraries: 245–259, at 253, ("[T]he same document can be a primary or a secondary source depending on the particular analysis the historian is doing"); Monagahn, E.J. & Hartman, D.K. (2001), "Historical research in literacy", Reading Online 4 (11), ("[A] source may be primary or secondary, depending on what the researcher is looking for.").

Shame on you, dipshit. Were you doing research on how modern Islamic apologists variously render the words jihad, qital, hirabah.... No, you were acting as though they were the definitive answer on the question. In this context, they may be primary only from the perspective of reviewing modern authors opinions, not from depicting the content or context of the original manuscripts (i.e. they are secondary, blubbery fool).

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 2:07 AM

Good muslims follow the rules....

How is is possible for a 'good' muslim to worship Allah in moderation?

How is it possible for a 'good' muslim to live according to Allahs directions, Quran/Shari'a in moderation?

How is it possible for any muslim to 'interpret',
re-interpret, Allahs immutable words?

How is it possible that a muslim can worship in moderation, live as a muslim in moderation, and
'interpret' Allahs words, that are already perfect and complete.

How is it possible for a good muslim to take as a role model of perfection and example, Mohammad, and then ignore him or emulate his examples in moderation?

How is it possible for a muslim to hold these views and not risk the wrath of Allah?

How is it possible for the risker's of the wrath of Allah to get into paradise?

I don't think too many muslims are indulging themselves in these moderations, to do so means
apostasy and hellfire. It matters little what RS believes about that, or what Carr believes about that, or what I believe about that. What matters is what Allah thinks about it, and I hear he is fuming. He made his expectations of muslims perfectly clear in his book The Quran. No muslim in their right mind is going to antagonize Allah...Slaves just follow rules, never antagonize the master...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 27, 2008 2:10 AM

Mr. Carr,

The sense of the quranic Arabic can certainly gleaned from comparisons of multiple reliable translations, translation of accomplished scholars, including those of native speakers of Arabic and of Muslims themselves. I also think Robert Spencer familiarity and facility with classical Arabic far exceeds your own.

Don't prove me right about your total subjectivity and complete relativism when it comes to literary analysis and textual criticism. Robert Spencer's resources are likely more sufficient and profound than yours. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 2:12 AM

Thanks, John C! I read that the "Reverend" Jim Sutter is a con man. What do you know about him?

Posted by: champ at January 27, 2008 2:15 AM

There have been numerous observations and comments on Mr. Carr's postmodernism in this thread. Curious that meaning is so fluid for him when confronted with confounding facts, but so rigid when it comes to elucidating Islamic texts.

"Translations into other languages are necessarily the work of humans and so, according to Muslims, no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original."

ACCORDING TO MUSLIMS

Wake up call, I'm not a Muslim. No one here subscribes to "THE ONLY LANGUAGE THAT CAN'T BE TRANSLATED" canard. These are not novel arguments here, Carr. Search the archives. You're impressing no one here that you are so ill prepared.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 2:15 AM

Ma'am, I visited Sutter's site and CAIR's site with the link to that same pdf. Other than that, I suggest you check the links at JW's home page sidebar to find sites devoted to exposing/debunking Sutter.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 2:20 AM

Thanks! Look at what I found on the Reverend:

Excerpt:

"Jim Sutter is a deeply disturbed man who invents lies about himself and others. Those he tells about himself are sometimes amusing. The lies that he tells about others never are. Who is this hateful man whose only purpose in life is to harm the reputations of businesses and individuals with horrible accusations of racism and "hate"?"

Read it all: http://www.phonyrev.com/

Posted by: champ at January 27, 2008 2:28 AM

Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad
By Walid Phares

The practice of not using "Jihad" and "Jihadism" was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University [2] who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard.[3] On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title "Loosly Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology." Streusand told CNN that "Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith." [4]
The article was posted under the title "Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms" by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. [5] Since then the "concept" of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of the defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that "Jihad has been hijacked" as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard's lobbying pieces.[6] Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.

The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the "real" Muslim leadership. According to this thesis, those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers." The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that "jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense."[7]

When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, as a plan to prevent jihad and Jihadism from being depicted by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore sanctioned activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy...

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 2:36 AM

What a priceless find, champ.

My two favourites

a) under 'Personal & Health-Related Claims', we have "Dying from Heart Failure"

Hilarious. The great Rev Stutter recovered from a terminal illness.

and

b)the header description of Rev Stutter: "Tax Evader, Two-Time Convicted Felon, Pathological Liar, Navy Seal Imposter, Bogus Academic, Fraudulent Combat Medals Claimant, Suspected Bigot, Phony Minister and perhaps even worse..."

.........and those were his good qualities.

BOOM tish

And to think that the great Jeffrey "I only use primary sources" Carr's site has links to Rev Nutter's site.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, do you hear!!!!

Posted by: ewha1 at January 27, 2008 2:46 AM

I find that of Steven Coughlin's three views, the third most fits what I know, and have learned about jihad, and islam.

Jeffrey Carr may find yet another view, a forth to give pause perhaps. What of Coughlin thesis is in error?

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at January 27, 2008 2:51 AM

Mr. Carr were you aware Allah made the Qur'an clear, simple and easy? (44:58 54:22 54:32 54:40)and nowhere does Allah say "my words must be read with help of commentaries and tasfirs"? Allah asks the Muslims to believe the literal meaning and forbade interpretations in Qur'an 3:7 "He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture as well as multiple
meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning..."

Tasfir ibn Kathir (3:7): "Allah states that in the Qur'an, there are Ayat that are Muhkamat, entirely clear and plain, and these are the foundations of the Book which are plain for everyone. And there are Ayat in the Qur'an that are Mutashabihat not entirely clear for many, or some people. The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented. (So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation) meaning, those who are misguided and deviate from truth to falsehoood (they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof) meaning, they refer to the Mutashabih, because they are able to alter its meanings to conform with their false interpretation since the wordings of the Mutashabihat encompass such a wide area of meanings. As for the Muhkam Ayat, they cannot be altered because they are clear and, thus, constitute unequivocal proof against the misguided people. This is why Allah said,
(seeking Al-Fitnah) meaning, they seek to misguide their following by pretending to prove their innovation by relying on the Qur'an -- the Mutashabih of it -- but, this is proof against and not for them. For instance, Christians might claim that [`Isa is divine because] the Qur'an states that he is Ruhullah and His Word, which He gave to Mary, all the while ignoring Allah's statements,(He [`Isa] was not more than a servant. We granted Our favor to him.) [43:59], and, Al-Bukhari recorded a similar Hadith in the Tafsir of this Ayah [3:7], as did Muslim in the book of Qadar (the Divine Will) in his Sahih, and Abu Dawud in the Sunnah section of his Sunan, from `A'ishah; "The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah,(It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear,)

"Verses that are entirely clear." "Entirely clear and plain". You know, like kill the unbelievers.
Can you tell us in what way kill the unbelievers actually means kiss the unbelievers?

Posted by: Nick Danger at January 27, 2008 2:56 AM

Carr, you are a pest.

its not as if we haven't heard it before: how the Koran 'has to be read in Arabic', which only about 10 % (is it that many?) of all Muhammedans in the world understand, (let alone speak)

Another 60% of your lot is illiterate, stupid and poor because of this belief-system that stifles mental growth, of which you are the typical example.

Here is the modus operandi of Islamic discussions for you Carr: You better come up with something new if you want to impress anyone here:

Turnspeak, lies, deflection and taqiyya:

When trying to debate with Muhammedans you will end up frustrated and exasperated: Muhammedans are masters of a technique called ‘turnspeak’-

*
they use Tu Quoque (’you do it too-arguments) ‘accuse the accuser’- they employ kitman & taqiyya (lies & deception and dissimulation) they deflect away from the subject matter to avoid getting nailed on the unpleasant things like the atrocities, the rape, the plunder, slavery and child-molesting of the ‘profit’ Mohammed and his companions. Inevitably, if you know your stuff-, they will threaten to kill you and tell you that you will go to hell for questioning their belief-system.

Expect this and prepare yourself accordingly:

Criticizing Islam? Get ready for this:
by Infidel

Whenever you criticize anything related to Islam, Allah, Muhammad, Sharia laws or muslim community, you will find a refutation immediately. To refute something is OK but the way muslims refute is funny. Here are some most common ways of a muslim-refute, the order may change depending upon your and muslim’s caliber:

1. First of all, muslims will say, “This is false information”, “This is a lie”.
Whatever you say is wrong and whatever they say is only right.

2. Next step is Taqqiya. i.e. “Islam means peace”, “Islam was not spread by sword but love”, “No compulsion in religion”,

3. If you quote from Koran or hadith, you will be accused of quoting verses in bits and pieces.

4. And be prepared for accusation that the verses you quoted are twisted and out of context.

5. If you provide reference to your quote, then muslims will say “All your references are false and lies”, which implies only their references are true and correct.

6. You will be advised to “Read the koran first and you will see the light”

7. If you say you have already read it then they will doubt you as if you are a liar.

8. If you quote full verses (not bits & pieces) from koran and hadith, your translation is incorrect / misleading. Then you will be advised to learn Arabic and read the the original version.

9. If you say, I read the same Koran with most authentic translations, which muslims are referring to, then you will be asked “Did you read only the cover?”, “Read it with open mind”

(Read with closed mind, like a muslim reads by keeping their brains aside)

10. Besides your reading of the translated Koran or even though you know Arabic, if you quote from the Koran, they quote hadith, tafseer etc, but if you quote hadith, then they will say “Only Koran is authentic”.

11. Deflection: After all this, if you are still willing to continue, they will distract you and other readers from the original issue/topic and feed you with plenty of irrelevant issues.

12. If you are still sticking to the original issue, Muslims will refer to other religions’ scriptures like Bible, Torah, Vedas, Geeta etc and other events and personnels like Bush, Blair, Indira Gandhi, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine etc.

13. Be prepared for one or more muslims to showing their way of convincing, such as Copy & paste stuff or reference from crap Islamic sites. This includes verses from Koran & hadith, twisted facts from non islamic holy scriptures like mohammad is prophesized in all of them.

14. In this context, one or more muslims will write about Miracles in the Koran. Remember that whatever is discovered in recent time, Muslims will attribute it to Koran, but they will keep quite till it is discovered. They will never talk about the fallacies in the Koran like the “Sky is a dome on imaginary pillars”, “ the Sun sets in a muddy pond”, “the sun is revolving around the earth” etc. If you draw their attention to these fallacies, they will copy and paste crap again which is totally illogical and irrational. You will be again advised to read Koran.

15. You are about to loose your patience but still continuing, then comes personal attack. You will be abused as fool, stupid, idiot, pig, dog etc

16. If that does not work, then there will be accusation of taking money for your criticism of islam. You may get this also “Western media is biased, its propaganda to defame islam, Islam is wronged by all non muslims” etc.

17. If you don’t stop there, then muslims will run for your mother and sister.

18. If you are stubborn and still want to continue, you will be cursed like “Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, still time to seek the truth” etc

19. Towards the end, when all of the above has failed, you will be threatened directly like, “beware, watch it, keep cool, my sincere advice” or indirectly like “Give me your email id, don’t hide behind a false name, you are a coward (since you have a false id on the net), Then you might get an invitation to go to debate one to one or visit mosques or Islamic centers like Islamic Research Foundation in person” etc.

20. And finally- its drum beating, for all Muslioms, as if they won a debate, even when they lose miserably, because Koran is the word of allah.

Since the Koran is allah’s word and is clear to understand and is for all man kind, for all time and for all places, why there are hadiths, tafseers and commentaries?

Why various sects of islam and clerics are understanding it differently,

While Koran is very clear and for all to understand?

Why some verses are for a particular place and time, i.e. 1400 years ago and for the Arabic peninsula only, while the Koran is for all time, for all places and for all mankind?

Why there is Abrogation, later verses of the Koran supersede earlier ones? Was allah not able to reveal it at first time or did he change his mind time to time to suite muhammad’s needs?

Why is islam, being the only true religion, not able to be in majority, leave alone the only religion (as they claim) on the face of this earth, even after more than 1400 years since ‘revealed’ to muhammad?

There are many more questions but I will leave them for next time.

http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/22/islam/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 27, 2008 3:04 AM

Mr. Carr:

I asked you, as you correctly noted, to "produce one false statement I have ever made about Islam, the doctrine of jihad, or any related matter."

I further stipulated that "the simple assertion by you is not enough. You have to have evidence. Clear, demonstrable evidence, that what I say about Islam is false."

In response, you said:

In your book Islam Unveiled, you wrote: “Jihad is a permanent war that excludes the idea of peace but authorizes temporary truces to the political situation (muhadana). “

That is indeed in the book, but it is a quotation of the historian Bat Ye'or. Thus we have dueling authorities. Why do you believe Streusand and Afroz Ali, but not Bat Ye'or? Because you wish to: you say that Streusand and Afroz Ali as "authentic Islamic scholars," and that I am not, but here is an authentic Islamic scholar saying what you actually put into my mouth (and indeed, I did quote it).

Also, as has been noted, an argument from authority is weak. That fact that someone with fewer degrees may disagree with someone with more degrees doesn't make him ipso facto wrong. You don't judge an argument by the number of degrees the person advancing it has; you judge it by its accuracy in terms of the data.

Also, in your book Onward Muslim Soldiers, you wrote:

“The goal of jihad is thus the incorporation of non-Muslims into Muslim society, either by conversion or submission."

I did indeed say that, in a discussion of Qur'an 9:29.

Now: back to arguments from authority. Let us examine, to take just one example, the work of the great Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, who died earlier this year at the age of 98. Khadduri was an Iraqi and a scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, he says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. Although it was not a consciously formulated policy, Muhammad's early successors, after Islam became supreme in Arabia, were determined to embark on a ceaseless war of conquest in the name of Islam. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

And:

Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam's instrument or carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief in God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared "some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ." Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community which prefers to remain non-Islamic -- in the status of a tolerated religious community accepting certain disabilities -- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. (Page 64)

Was Khadduri a "hate propagandist"? Was he clearly and consistently misrepresenting and falsely defining the word "jihad"?

Want another? Happy to oblige! Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, an Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, in his book The Methodology of Ijtihad writes that “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book [primarily Jews and Christians]…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

But then why hasn’t the worldwide Islamic community been waging jihad on a large scale up until relatively recent times? Nyazee says it is only because they have not been able to do so: “the Muslim community may be considered to be passing through a period of truce. In its present state of weakness, there is nothing much it can do about it.”

So now we have Khadduri and Nyazee, along with Bat Ye'or, versus Streusand and Afroz Ali. We could keep playing this game endlessly, quoting authority after authority, but that would be pointless. The point I'm making is that to make the assertions I have made about jihad does not constitute "hate propaganda," but is a perfectly demonstrable position from Islamic texts and teachings, and is, in fact, held by many scholars, including Muslim scholars.

What's more, the scholars, Muslim and non-Muslim, who deny the legitimacy of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism in Islam have, unfortunately, never answered the Islamic arguments advanced by the jihadist proponents of that legitimacy in a way that will convince any significant number of them that the jihad they're waging is not actually Islamically sound. The jihadist appeal is traditionalist and based on Islamic scripture and law, and that's what gives it its revivalist power in the Islamic world.

Oh, and as for Arabic, here is just one example of my discussing the Arabic wording of the Qur'an -- something it is rather difficult for those who know no Arabic to do:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017476.php#c426279

But no, I do not accept the foggy mystical idea that the Qur'an can only be understood in the Arabic original. Most Muslims today do not speak Arabic, and Arabic is a human language that can be translated like any other. If what you have asserted about Arabic were true, no Muslims would ever translate the Qur'an. Yet large numbers of Muslim translations exist. The idea that the Qur'an can only be understood in Arabic is simply an obfuscation thrown up by defensive Muslims who want to prevent non-Muslims from reading it and seeing what's in there, or allowing themselves to understand what's in there when they read it.

So to sum up: you were asked to provide evidence that I am a "hate propagandist" making false statements about Islam. In response you produced statements from me that in reality are also made by many scholars of Islam and Muslims themselves. In doing so, therefore, you have provided renewed evidence that you are the hate propagandist yourself. One more response, and then I'll put in the ban.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 27, 2008 3:13 AM

Okay, let me see if I've got this right:

Mr. Carr has a magic book that can't really be understood unless it's read in a language that nobody really understands, even though this same book repeatedly claims that it is "clear." Mr. Carr and people like him wish to run their entire lives according to this book, even though they don't, and can't, really understand it. Except sometimes some people (Islamic "scholars") can sometimes sort of understand it, except that they can't explain what they understand unless they use a language nobody really understands.

This kind of mendacious stupidity is absolutely beyond belief.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at January 27, 2008 3:16 AM

MEGA, mega dittos, Robert. (Yes, Carr, I'm a mindless robotic sycophant) Worth losing sleep for--to see the Title bout between Accepted View Ostrich vs. Counterjihad Kid.

Seriously, why would anyone "strive, struggle in the Way of Allah" to whitewash and make acceptable the doctine of religious war in the Twenty-First Christian Century? Unless, of course, they are jihadists, Ikhwanists, traitors, or fools.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 3:50 AM

Mr Spencer debates Mr Carr about Islam.

Not the most equal of match ups it has to be said.

Posted by: ewha1 at January 27, 2008 4:55 AM

Struggle in the way of Allah until there is no more fitnah on earth, and all religion is for Allah alone.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 6:29 AM

Jeffrey, we hardly knew ye.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 6:43 AM

Mr. Carr:

Once, you asked me how many sects there were in Islam and how many of those advocate terrorism, and I answered you without falling into the trap within your question.

Now I have a question for you, if you should have an opportunity to answer it. Given the inextricable link between the Qur'an and the language in which it set forth, and given the ineffable quality of that language, so that it impossible to render it into any other tongue, I ask you this:

How many forms of Arabic are spoken or in use today, and into what categories are these classified?

If you should not happen to answer, and no one answers in your stead, then, if need be, I'll venture to answer myself.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 7:23 AM

But but but:

Even the 'great scholar' Tariq Ramadan sez that unbelievers cannot understand the Koran, right? Rrright???

In the January 6 issue of the New York Times Book Review, Tariq Ramadan has an essay that argues, in its essence, that non-believers cannot really read or understand the Koran-because it speaks exclusively to believers.

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/12/tariq-ramadan-an-outsider-infidel-cannot-understand-the-glorious-koran/

The dumber they come, the harder they fall. Its hilarious that this pseudo-intellectual darling of the left is still allowed to peddle this schlock on EUrabian universites and gets paid for it.

The infidel is all merciful and most forgiving...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 27, 2008 7:23 AM

Good Morning, all. Can somebody say FEEDING FRENZY?! LOL.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 7:47 AM

To question the worldview, premises and assertions of Islam is bigotry to the likes of Jeffrey Carr, but when it serves his purposes he has no scruples about questioning and mocking Christianity and Judaism and about charging tu quoque against Jews and Christians. His smug personal attacks are contemptible. He will not be missed.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 8:33 AM

"to your hate propaganda" --J Carr

What "hate propaganda?" The "hate" comes from the people featured in the articles JW/DW reprints - Mohammedans.

People, "crazy" Carr is a loon. Best to ignore him, an imbecile.

Hey - did he get banned? (see below comment):

"Jeffrey, we hardly knew ye."

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 6:43 AM

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 8:58 AM

Please, no "well-documented Opinion" for Mr. Carr.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 27, 2008 9:01 AM

Mornin', darcy.

See Robert's 3:13am posting, above. I think Jeff Carr has ONE last chance to get a word in, perhaps even to redeem himself [not gonna happen]. I'm still here wondrin' if he shows up, whether he'll go down swingin' or not.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 9:08 AM

Mornin', darcy.

See Robert's 3:13am posting, above. I think Jeff Carr has ONE last chance to get a word in, perhaps even to redeem himself [not gonna happen]. I'm still here wondrin' if he shows up, whether he'll go down swingin' or not.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 9:08 AM

Mornin', John C

Uh Huh. I saw where he called RS a "hate propagandist." No, that vicious, foul, and utterly INVALID ad hominem will not be tolerated.

The irony, of course, is that Carr defends the actual hate propagandists - Islamists!

RS is an American hero.

crazy carr is a caterpillar that crawled out from under a rock somewhere. Crawl back, Carr!

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 9:19 AM

To think every translation from Arabic is wrong in one way or another.

Now Jeffery, do you know how silly that makes you sound?

The Idea of killing someone for non-belief, does not mean killing someone for non belief, as long as it is expressed in Arabic?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 27, 2008 9:34 AM

Darn, I guess I'm never going to get an answer to this question.

Mr. Carr, just what is the US Mission, in your view?

I suppose I'll just have to go on aiding and abetting radicalization.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 27, 2008 9:47 AM

but Darcy is flat out nuts. --Carr

Wow! Crazy Carr is still thinking about me, even though I wasn't even on this "discussion" last night!

LOL - no one here will agree with you, Crazy Carr. Indeed YOU are the one who is "flat out nuts" and about to be banned! LOL!

Good Riddance, Crazy Loon Flat out Nuts Caterpillar Carr!

Truly, you belong in an asylum. Check in today, please! Do the world a favor!

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 9:50 AM

darcy,

I'm very fond of caterpillars, generally. Think of all that biomass for the birds to dine on. I've got my 512-page Princeton Field Guide to Caterpillars of Eastern North America, by David L. Wagner in front of me now. You've got to be fair, now, to all the pretty butterflies and handsome moths, you know.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 9:55 AM

Actually, John C, I almost added "No offense to real caterpillars." Immensely preferable to the hateful human known as "jeffrey carr."

Concerning your continuing "hate" on me, carr, I've reached the conclusion that you are not only a nutcase, but evil, as well. Rotten to the core - a real Hater. Thanks for showing us here at JW what a real Hater looks like - You. Obsessive nutcase.

Apparently you have one more chance before you get banned. Blow it! And then check in to your nearest mental hospital (do the world a favor, you Hater!). Oh, and bring Hater Extraordinaire fellow-nutjob Sutter with you, lol

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 10:07 AM

To question the worldview, premises and assertions of Islam is bigotry to the likes of Jeffrey Carr, but when it serves his purposes he has no scruples about questioning and mocking Christianity and Judaism and about charging tu quoque against Jews and Christians. His smug personal attacks are contemptible. He will not be missed.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 8:33 AM

Good One.

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 10:12 AM

Besides, darcy, Jeff Carr is smitten by you; it's his fixation, his obsession. His vision of Paradise is populated by 72 dark-eyed houris just like you. Can't you tell?

[Now, if that don't goad and provoke the man, nothin' will.]

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 10:13 AM

Glad you heartily agree with my earlier post, darcy--as for my last post above, that's my irrepressible impishness coming to the fore.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 10:20 AM

"his obsession."

Yeah, John C, if you read my above post, I already used the word "obsessive" about carr's continuing "hate" on me. What a nutjob! and a misogynist as well.

Is he a Mohammedan, with the name "jeffrey carr?" Or a rabid, obsessive, loony-tunes Muslim Apologist? Which? A drooling Neanderthal either way.

If crazy carr continues to obsess on me, KNOW that he's not only feebleminded, but also just plain insane.

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 10:20 AM

that's my irrepressible impishness coming to the fore.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 10:20 AM

LOL!

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 10:25 AM

Since I happen to have these quotes handy, here are some other Islamic scholars on jihad:

Maliki jurist Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406): “ In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam by persuasion or by force.... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense...Islam is under obligation to gain power over other
nations.” (Ibn Khaldun, "The Muqaddimah". (Excerpted from Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans Franz Rosenthal, 1958). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 161). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

And also Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani (d. 996): “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. … We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax , short of which war will be declared against them.” (Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani. (Excerpted from Leon Bercher, La Risala ou Epitre sur les elements du dogme de la loi d'Islam, 1945; English translation from Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude Seventh-Twentieth Century, 1996). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 146). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

Hanbali jurist Ibn Tamiyya (d. 1328): “Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.” (Ibn Taymiyya, "Al-Siyasa Al-Shariyya". (Excerpted from Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, 1996.) In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 168). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

Hanafi jurist Shaikh Burdanuddin Ali of Marghinan (d. 1196): “It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the trouble of war....” (From the Hidayah, vol. ii. p. 140, excerpted in Thomas P. Hughes, 'A Dictionary of Islam', 'Jihad' pp. 243—248. London, United Kingdom.: W.H. Allen, 1895.

Shaafi jurist al-Mawardi (d. 1058): “The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them... in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interests of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun.... Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger...it is forbidden us to initiate an attack... before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.” (Al-Mawardi, "Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah". (Excerpted from The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans Asadullah Yate, 1996). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 190). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

Shia scholar al-Amili (d. 1621) “Islamic holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.” (Muhammad al-Amili. (Excerpted from Jami'-i Abbasi: Yakdawrah-i fiqh-i, trans. Fatemeh Masjedi, 1980.) In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 213). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

Shia (Jafaari) scholar Ayatollah Khomeini (d. 1989): “But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless.” (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. (Excerpted from "Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists", 1942). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 226). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

Al-Azhar (Sunni) scholar Muhammad Sai’id al-Buti: “The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic jurisprudence is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form.” (Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al Buti. Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography. (7th edition, p 134))

Islamic jurisprudence codifies into law 2 different kinds of obligations with respect to jihad. Self-defense is always an individual obligation (“fard-‘ayn”) upon every member of the ummah, while expansionist, aggressive jihad is a collective obligation (“fard-kifaya”).

Majiid Khadurri notes, "The jihad, on the other hand - unless the Muslim community is subjected to a sudden attack and therefore all believers, including women and children, are under the obligation to fight - is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community. It is regarded as fard al-kifaya, binding on the Muslims as a collective group, not individually. If the duty is fulfilled by a part of the community it ceases to be obligatory on others; the whole community, however, falls into error if the duty is not performed at all." (Majid Khadduri, "The Doctrine of Jihad". (From War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Book 2: The Law of War: The Jihad, 1955). In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 309). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Reliance of the Traveler: "09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O [the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,” and Allah Most High having said: “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good.” (Koran 4:95)”
“If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.”
“The first is when they [i.e. Muslims] are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever can."

Ibn Tamiyyah: "The most serious type of obligatory jihad is the one against the unbelievers and against those who refuse to abide by certain prescriptions of the Sharia, like those who refuse to pay zakat....This jihad is obligatory if it is carried out on our initiative and also if it is waged as defense. If we take the initiative, it is a collective duty [which means that] if it is fulfilled by a sufficient number [of Muslims], the obligation lapses for all others and the merit goes to those who have fulfilled it...But if the enemy wants to attack the Muslim, then repelling him becomes a duty for all those under attack and for the others in order to help them......So the latter [form of jihad] consists in defense of the religion, of things that are inviolable, and of lives. Therefore it is fighting out of necessity. The former [type of jihad], however, is voluntary fighting in order to propogate the religion, to make it triumph and to intimidate the enemy, such as was the case with the expedition to Tabuk and the like." (Ibn Taymiyya, "Al-Siyasa Al-Shariyya". (Excerpted from Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, 1996.) In Andrew Bostom (Ed.) (2005), The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (p. 171-172). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.)

Molla Khosrew (d. 1480): “…jihad is a fard al-kifaya, that is, that one must begin the fight against the enemy, even when he [the enemy] may not have taken the initiative to fight, because the Prophet...early on…allowed believers to defend themselves, later, however, he ordered them to take the initiative at certain times of the year, that is, at the end of the haram months, saying, “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them...” (Q9:5). He finally ordered fighting without limitations, at all times and in all places, saying, “Fight those who do not believe in God, and in the Last Day...”(Q9:29); there are also other [similar] verses on the subject. This shows that it is a fard al-kifaya." (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={A0780129-88D6-4968-BB7C-54AC7AC858C0})

Hasan Al-Banna: “The author of the "Majma' al-Anhar fi Sharh Multaqal-Abhar", in describing the rules of jihad according to the Hanafi School, said: "Jihad linguistically means to exert one's utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee’ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols. This means that jihad is to strive to the utmost to ensure the strength of Islam by such means as fighting those who fight you and the dhimmies (if they violate any of the terms of the treaty) and the apostates (who are the worst of unbelievers, for they disbelieved after they have affirmed their belief). It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this. If some of the people fulfil the obligation, the remainder are released from the obligation. If this fard kifayah (communal obligation) cannot be fulfilled by that group, then the responsibility lies with the closest adjacent group, and then the closest after that etc., and if the fard kifayah cannot be fulfilled except by all the people, it then becomes a fard ‘ayn (individual obligation), like prayer on everyone of the people. This obligation is by virtue of what He, the Almighty, said: ‘Then fight the polytheists...!’ (Surat at-Tawbah (9), ayah 5) and by what the Prophet (PBUH) said: ‘Jihad is in effect until the Day of Judgement’ If the whole body [of believers] abandons it, they are in a state of sin’ (up to where the author of the book says: ‘If the enemy conquers any territory of Islam, or any regions of it, it becomes a fard ‘ayn, and the woman and the slave shall go forth without the permission of husband or master. In the same way, the child shall go forth without the permission of his parents, and the debtor without the permission of his creditor."
(http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/#all_muslims)

Sheik Al-Qaradhawi: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way. The repulsing Jihad takes place when your land is being invaded and conquered... [in that case you must] repulse [the invader] to the best of your ability….”
(http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=persiangulf&ID=SP24601)

Posted by: Caroline at January 27, 2008 10:29 AM

Thank you, Caroline.

I wish the entire world knew your documentation of war and peace in Islam.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 10:42 AM

Your quotations say it all, Caroline. Yep, "jihad" is Islamic Holy War allright.

From your 5th quotation:

"informing them of the miracles of the Prophet"

'Scuse me, what miracles? I believe that when pressed, Mo could only come up with the Koran as his sole "miracle."

Now this, from the highly-revered Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, should clear up all confusion:

"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless.” (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

I'm going to print out your quotations, Caroline, for future reference. Thanks for furnishing them.

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 10:50 AM

There are some 45,000 reputed hadiths; extra-Quranic accounts of miracles are there, I believe.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 11:01 AM

There are some 45,000 reputed hadiths; extra-Quranic accounts of miracles are there, I believe.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 11:01 AM

Can anyone provide an example of a purported Mohammed "miracle?" I've never heard of one except the flimsy and convenient "Koran" one! So "convenient" as Mo wrote it!

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 11:09 AM

Looks like a couple of my links failed. The frontpagemag link for the Molla Khosrew quote is here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={A0780129-88D6-4968-BB7C-54AC7AC858C0}

And the link for the Sheik Al-Qaradhawi quote is here:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=persiangulf&ID=SP24601

Posted by: Caroline at January 27, 2008 11:10 AM

Robert, it's been fun, but banning me won't change the truth of the matter that you, Coughlin, Epstein, Horowitz, et al, are nothing more than Islamophobic self-annointed "experts" who are steadily losing influence in Washington. And while I won't be here in your "lovely" comments section to poke holes in your shallow arguments, you can look forward to at least one more post on debunking hate propagandists like yourself over at IntelFusion.net sometime in the not-to-distant future.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 27, 2008 11:16 AM

Carr,

You are so deluded. These gentlemen's influence grows daily. Do you even watch the MSM news? Where do you get your talking points? Why then is this such an obsession for you, why not let their cause die a natural death if their influence is waning?

Even his minions easily refute your "shallow arguments". You've yet to debunk anything except your own arguments. I hope this has at least been educational for you. Maybe when you've grown up and "self-taught" yourself some more you can be allowed back for more substantive dialogue.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 11:35 AM

O, the pot calls the kettle black.

Sneer, bluff, name-calling--but no beef. I genuinely expected more from you, Mr. Carr. Shame! Islamophobes? Hate propagandists? Shallow arguments? The real truth of the matter, sir, is that you CANNOT desist from personal attack and bald assertion in the name of unsubstantiated "truth."

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 11:40 AM

LOL, looks like Nutty Carr the Hater and Imbecile has taken a hike! Oh, SO Good-bye, you ignoramus on the side of the real "hate propagandists" - Mohammedans.

What is "IntelFusion" - some sort of crackpot site filled with Nutter Sutter habituees?

Anyway, there goes a bonafide Hater - Crazy Carr! Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish!

Hooray for Messrs Spencer, Coughlin, Epstein and Horowitz!

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 11:40 AM

newsflash:

R O B E R T
S P E N C E R
T R I U M P H S !!

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 11:47 AM

newsflash:

R O B E R T
S P E N C E R
T R I U M P H S !!

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 11:47 AM

Copy that! (Literally!)

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 11:59 AM

Thanks, ewha1!

JW provides that link on the left-hand side of their home page under The "Reverend" Jim Sutter. Pretty revealing, huh?

If Carr is choosing to associate himself with the loser-likes of Jim Sutter, then need I say more? Jim aside, Carr managed to run his arguments into the ditch all by his 'lonesome' with his weak PC pitch.

Guess Carr hit the road.

Posted by: champ at January 27, 2008 12:00 PM

I think he was probably shown the door, given his last hate rant didn't follow the agreed rules of engagement.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 27, 2008 12:12 PM

All together now...

Nah nah nah nah,

Nah nah nah nah,

Hey, hey, hey..

Gooodbye!!!

For all our non-American friends, that's a song/chant done at sporting events when the outcome of a match is obvious.

Posted by: mepeteart at January 27, 2008 12:17 PM

Let's face it. If these enemies of ours believe their threats to us, why don't we?
Our leadership(sic)(?), in either party, have been infantilizing and dumbing down the American public (Americana is a term I use for the lemmingesque) since the 60's, with suggestions, which in this case might be, "You don't really believe that, do you?" Of course, question the press and we're traumatizing a litany of freedoms.

Posted by: Shawmut at January 27, 2008 12:29 PM

Did someone go off looking for well documented Opinion again?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 27, 2008 1:17 PM

Mr. Carr:

1. You made a claim about me.
2. I asked you to supply evidence for it.
3. You offered what you claimed as such evidence.
4. I showed why it did not establish your point, with evidence of my own.

And then we get this from you:

Robert, it's been fun, but banning me won't change the truth of the matter that you, Coughlin, Epstein, Horowitz, et al, are nothing more than Islamophobic self-annointed "experts" who are steadily losing influence in Washington. And while I won't be here in your "lovely" comments section to poke holes in your shallow arguments, you can look forward to at least one more post on debunking hate propagandists like yourself over at IntelFusion.net sometime in the not-to-distant future.

I look forward to this "debunking," as you haven't managed to do it yet. You could have at this point offered arguments for taking Afroz Ali and Streusand over Khadduri, Nyazee and Bat Ye'or. I have reasons for taking Khadduri, Nyazee, and BY over Streusand and Ali, and was ready to explain them if you had come back with a cogent response, but all we got instead was more of your smears.

You have exposed yourself as a smear artist, a defamer, a hate propagandist. You have provided not one shred of evidence that what I have said or written about Islamic jihad is incorrect. And now you go away promising more defamation.

I don't know how you sleep at night after indulging in such lies and base character assassination.

You are hereby banned from commenting here.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 27, 2008 1:55 PM

Non-IntelFusion: the place where Mr Carr’s cranium and rectum are married.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 27, 2008 2:08 PM

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr
Written by Afroz Ali of the al-Ghazzali Centre for Islamic Sciences and Human Development
Source: http://www.alghazzali.org/resources/articles/jihad.pdf
There you go, Robert. You have clearly and consistently mis-represented and falsely defined the word "jihad", as demonstrated by direct quotes from the Qu'ran and two authentic scholars of Islamic studies, which probably doesn't suprise anyone since you have no academic standing in Islamic studies and nothing published in any peer-reviewed journals.

Look at the name "Centre for Islamic Sciences and Human Development". What exactly is "Islamic Science" but the study of propaganda and its effectiveness? Wouldn't the "Center for Islamic Propaganda and Human Domination" be a better description?

This is disturbingly similar to the techniques employed to shut down debate about the global warming "crisis": dismiss all criticism on the basis that if someone does not agree, they are not qualified to speak. When critics persist in pointing out problems with the assumptions and interpretation of results, they are labeled "holocaust deniers". Meanwhile, the "true scholars" of global warming consolidate political and economic power around a very narrow perspective of simulation "experts" and politicians who have great difficulty not only in predicting the future, but acknowledging historical and geological evidence from the past.

If Islamic propaganda and global warming alarmism are not related, they share some of the same goals: controlling or destroying energy production and thereby the economy, while diluting the meaning and methodology of science.

The consequence of this general decline of "intellectualism" at our universities raises justified concern; we've already seen the results of the progressive, emotional "science", and "social justice" based politics during the first half of the twentieth century.

Afroz Ali's paper referenced by Carr contains the line: It baffles me that people would not seek to understand truth from its sources, but will be happy to accept propaganda as truth.

Oh come on, Mr. Ali, it doesn't baffle you at all. The entire body of work at the "al-Ghazzali Centre for Islamic Sciences and Human Development" may well rest on the assumption that most people do not have the time or motivation become "experts".

Posted by: RalphInfidel at January 27, 2008 2:24 PM

Carr & many others can smear and come up with weak excuses for an argument on hate and jihad, but at the end of the day it's the Islamists themselves who tell us the meanings and act them out for the world to see. Nothing more clear than that. Save your words all you Jeffery Carrs.

Posted by: Sounder at January 27, 2008 2:41 PM

Islam is as Islam does.

Posted by: dms at January 27, 2008 3:24 PM

Koran: the master playbook from which jihadists quote in order to justify their actions worldwide. Terrorists without borders.

Posted by: dms at January 27, 2008 3:42 PM

At best, Carr might have been able to argue that within Islam there exists an alternative definition of Jihad which co-exists with the one that Spencer's sources establish.

It would not matter if the two co-existing definitions of Jihad within Islam are, or seem, self-contradictory, since many systems of thought have internal inconsistencies.

The disagreement then could have moved to the more fruitful level of exploring certain questions, such as

1. Which of the two co-existing definitions of Jihad within Islam have more influence?

2. How can we determine #1?

3. Why does one have more influence than the other?

4. Even if a peaceful Jihad co-exists with a violent Jihad, or even if it can be proved that the peaceful Jihad outnumbers the violent Jihad, how does this concretely reduce the threat we face? [On this one, Carr would probably trot out the Rand report again on "moderate Muslims" -- a report that describes Fethullah Gulen as a "moderate Sufi"!]

5. Etc.

Posted by: cantor at January 27, 2008 4:01 PM

Ladies and gentlemen

now that the bouncers have removed the belligerent 'gentleman' from the bar and pitched him down the steps, let us reflect on the manner of his exit.

My own personal opinion is that he was probably a Muslim Disruptor in a mask. There is no necessity that anything he said about himself, on his blog, should be true.

A great deal about the way he argued was consistent with the methodology of Muslim 'argumentation' as described in the delightful summary posted by sheik yer'mami above - Jan 27 3.04 am (I think the original first appeared on the islam-watch website?), and as we have experienced on this very comments floor on numerous other occasions.

Point 8, to do with having to read the texts in Arabic, was raised - 'carr' seemingly being unaware that Robert is fluent in Arabic and has read the Arabic originals.

'Carr' scored particularly high on points 15 and 20. Point 15 is described as follows: "you are about to lose your patience but still continuing, then comes personal attack. You will be abused as fool, stupid, idiot, pig, dog etc [or, in this case, the insults, lavished not only upon Robert but upon certain other commenters, were a *little* more sophisticated - 'Islamophobe', purveyor of hate speech, bigot]".

Aspects of point 16 appeared: "If that does not work, then there will be accusation of taking money for your criticism of islam. You may get this also 'Western media is biased, it's propaganda to defame islam, Islam is wronged by all non-muslims'". I think both of these charges have featured in 'carr's exchanges with Robert during the past couple of months.

'carr' had enough sense to avoid points 17, 18, and 19 (see sheikyermami's post above, for details on those), since that would have blown his cover completely.

But his final post, before his ignominious exit, frogmarched out by the bouncers, reminds me strongly of Point 20:

"20. And finally - it's drum beating, for all Muslims, as if they won a debate, even when they lose miserably".

I may be wrong. But 'carr's whole style displayed, shall we say, an interesting 'fingerprint'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 27, 2008 4:32 PM

DDA,

The methodology fits. Our subject's objectivity is compromised. His purposes run parallel with the Ikhwan's. If Mr. Carr, for social, ideological, or economic reasons, is not already in the Islamist accomodation camp, he strongly identifies with them. Another example of inroads made by the Ikhwan's Islamization-by-degrees how-to-cook-a-frog program.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 5:04 PM

Just as we get to an interesting discussion on the nature of jihad, the banhammer comes down.

That's just no fun.

Posted by: Not Telling at January 27, 2008 5:54 PM

"You have exposed yourself as a smear artist, a defamer, a hate propagandist. You have provided not one shred of evidence that what I have said or written about Islamic jihad is incorrect. And now you go away promising more defamation.

I don't know how you sleep at night after indulging in such lies and base character assassination.

You are hereby banned from commenting here."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 27, 2008 1:55 PM

LOL. GOODbye, Crazy Carr!

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 6:08 PM

Not telling,

Carr came here to bait and snipe; he seems to have only made a pretense of debating. He most wanted to voice his animus against those who bluntly tell America uncomfortable truths, and to baldly assert the contrary as respectable and self-evident.

When his bluff was called and his purposes were blunted, he declared victory and withdrew to his home base.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 6:39 PM

darcy,

Obviously, the man set out to woo and bedazzle you, to entice you to his site. He was simply unable, however, to break the enchanted sway that Robert Spencer holds over his devotees. In the end, Jeffrey Carr met with bitter disappointment and wounded pride.

Just another of Robert's bested rivals.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 6:55 PM

darcy,

Obviously, the man set out to woo and bedazzle you, to entice you to his site. He was simply unable, however, to break the enchanted sway that Robert Spencer holds over his devotees. In the end, Jeffrey Carr met with bitter disappointment and wounded pride.

Just another of Robert's bested rivals.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 6:55 PM

Uh, no, John, I don't think so. He's just a sh**.

But, correct, I am devoted to RS, as everyone else here is, too. Carr - what a revolting person.

Jeffrey Carr met with...Banning. Good Riddance, the hate propagandist!

Posted by: darcy at January 27, 2008 7:06 PM

Oh, yeah,

Good One, BB.

Posted by: John C at January 27, 2008 7:06 PM

"Just as we get to an interesting discussion on the nature of jihad, the banhammer comes down.

That's just no fun."

Anything interesting in the discussing didnt come from carr.Losers like him have nothing to say.He has been on here for weeks and never could rise above empty platitudes and frankly slander.Just how long should he have been allowed to derail conversations here? He recieved fair warning and blew it.Thats got to hurt an attention whore like him.And that IS fun.

Posted by: 72_goats at January 27, 2008 8:19 PM

I think Robert's decision to ban Mr. Carr was long overdue. I never agreed with the idea of "hate speech" that emanated out of the Gramscian Left in academia. It is always defined in a way that prevents criticism of the Left's shibboleths. While the subject of Mr. Carr's faux criticism is islamic jihad, the "broken rule" is the violation of the code that thou shalt not criticize anything that is not Western Judaeo-Christian. The jihadis exploit this expertly, in order to attach the virus to the protein inside the host.

Most of us here are not into the kind of inflated invective that one hears from jihadis' speaches, whether in the Middle East, South Asia, or mosques in Europe, which I consider to be dripping with hatred. We prefer Robert's careful, methodical critique and this is why we are here, why we read his articles and books - as well as those of others who share his concerns and journey.

If "Jeffery Carr" ever overcame his sloth and delved into the Qur'an, some English translations of some ahadith, and read the life of the Prophet, he would come face to face with true hatred and menacing evil. To browbeat people who have done this and speak openly about it, I think, is bullying. He is helping to intimidate non-Muslims on behalf of the jihad, consciously or unconsciously.

You don't need a cherry-picked panel of experts in order to find out the truth. A lot of us, it is true, have read what Robert has published. But, like responsible citizens with a sense of intellectual honesty, we went and saw for ourselves. And it was even more horrifying than what Robert could impart in his books.

If all the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence and theology uphold the principle that the Qur'an is a divine dictation, how can we be expected to presume that this is a marginal, erroneous, heterodox view? The really interesting question I would pose to the experts that Mr. Carr summons in support is this: how would they answer the question "Do you believe that the Qur'an is the timeless, literal, inerrant, and uncreated words of Allah?" And you have to factor in taqiyya and kitman - HARD FACTS OF LIFE when dealing with Islamic clerics and scholars when they are talking with non-Muslims.

But, of course! Everything I've expressed here is ... hate speech!

THE watershed event of my life was leaving the Left, back in the late eighties. It was a gradual process of assessing the degrees of and incidents of cognitive dissonance I experienced and witnessed.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 27, 2008 8:54 PM

Jeffrey Carr said

Islamophobic self-annointed "experts" who are steadily losing influence in Washington

When did Robert et al ever have influence in Washington? The "Islam is the Religion of Peace" mantra has been de rigueur since the 1970's. It is only in the past year or two that we have heard of the slightest inroads being made by persons such as Stephen Coughlin and Robert Spencer, those who dare to suggest that Islam has a problem with violence and supremecy. On the contrary, I think this opinion in on the way up.

Not Telling said

Just as we get to an interesting discussion on the nature of jihad, the banhammer comes down.

I would love to read/hear/see an on-topic debate between Robert and a Muslim spokesperson. But I have yet to see any sort of intelligent response. It's all tu quoque, ad hominem, and obvious falsehoods. Jeffrey Carr doesn't provide that interesting discussion, and no-one else yet has either. I would say their clock is ticking as well, before a much larger ban is enforced.

Posted by: special_guest at January 28, 2008 1:17 AM

On the comparative value of Arabic:

I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with [Western] men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education.

Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1835

(Between 1834 and 1838 he lived in Calcutta and served on the British Supreme Council for India)

Posted by: cantor at January 28, 2008 3:23 AM