I am at a point where that if a muslim, or a left winger, calls me a name - I know that I am on the right track.

It is just a tactic they use to divert and hope the ignorant will listen so as to confuse and muddy the waters of fact.

Posted by: R_not at February 7, 2008 4:01 PM

Anyone for a hot cuppa taqiyya?

Posted by: the poetess at February 7, 2008 4:04 PM

Re: Hamas: We're allowed to lie

The whole (truly bizarre) Disneyland farce of peace between Israel and her Muslim enemies in the Mideast cannot be resolved until all are honest about the Quranic and Muslim dogma roots of the conflict. Everything else is Muslim deception. This site (Spencer and Fitzgerald) have consistently made that point. It is reality. Deception is central to Islam in its war against unbelievers.

In the long run it is the Muslim permission to deception which will undo Islam. The permission to deceive unbelievers is its "internal contradiction". When we say that something has an "internal contradiction" (Soviet collective farming, e.g.) we really mean the dogma goes against the deepest needs and desires of human beings. For that reason, such dogmas must be imposed by force.

People fear deceivers. No one can love anything or anyone they do not trust. Islam can only inspire fear or terror. The permissions to deception are its internal contradiction and as more and more non-Muslims know that Islam permits deception, Muslims will see the natural psychological defenses and caution of non-Muslims in dealing with Muslims, the caution necessary to deal with Fibrahinm Hooper, etc. style liars.

Posted by: Frank at February 7, 2008 4:06 PM

George? Condoleezza? Did you catch that?
Probably not.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 7, 2008 4:09 PM

"they are allowed to lie"....the One True God would disagree with that statement, but a false god wouldn't.

Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 4:25 PM

Of course taqiyya has its roots in Shi'a Islam --such religiously-sanctioned dissimulation was elaborated upon by Shi'a who felt the need to lie about their own faith because they were fearful of Sunni Muslims. But by now it has its counterpart, with Qur'anic sources, in Sunni Islam. This is important to understand, the next time Tariq Ramadan or someone else indignantly exclaims that "taqiyya" is "a Shi'a doctrine." Its sources are in Shi'ism; deception, including lying about the faith, is part of Sunni Islam as well.

Since we all know that Muslims may lie, may they also tell the truth? Of course they may, and the more forthright they are about it, the happier we should be.

Here's a three-question quiz designed to illustrate how the followers of Muhammad's statement "War is Deception" operate -- sometimes telling what they believe to be the truth, sometimes mingling what they believe to be the truth with falsehood.

Question #1.

The leader of the Arab terrorist group As Saiqa --the one who led "Palestinian" Arab Muslims to massacre hundreds of Maronites at Damour, in Lebanon -- Zuheir Mohsen, said the following to James Dorsey in a 1977 inteview in the Dutch newspaper "Trouw":

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

When he said that, was Zuhair Mohsen lying, or telling the truth?

Question #2.

At the U.N. in 1988, Yassir Arafat said the following:

“The State of Palestine is an Arab State; its people are an integral Part of the Arab nation and of the nation’s heritage, its civilization, and its aspiration to attain its goals of social progress, unity and liberation. [The State of Palestine] is committed to the Charter of the League of Arab States, the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [apparently uniquely so, for not a single Arab state subscribes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but rather to the “Muslim” version – the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights – which vitiates, in every important respect, every single one of the human rights that matter most] , and the principles of non-alignment."

Which parts of what he said were lies, and he knew he was lying, and which parts did he believe to be true?

Question #3.

In the latest issue of The Economist (February 1-7, 2008), the leader of Hamas, Mamoud Zahar, says:

“We Palestinians] were never an independent state in history,” he notes. “We were part of an Arab state and an Islamic state.”

Is Mahmoud Zahar telling the truth, as he sees it, or is he lying?

And why in this case, and in the other two examples I have given above, does it matter?

Please write on only one side of the blue book.

Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 4:28 PM

Hi, I hope this is allowed but I would like to announced my new blog Report on Arrakis

Posted by: kyros at February 7, 2008 4:28 PM

Now Roberto, you now better then to promote a covert political movement as a theological source or any authority. You're making militants the spokespeople of Islam again, and presenting Islam (ex. Quran) as the problem when you know very well that if we are to get anywhere it'll be because Islam is the solution.

Plus you know that verse 16:106 doesn't refer to anything Israel or Abbass are doing, ever did or will ever do to meet the requirement to say something against Islam in a life or death situation as the verses states.

Please treat Islam fairly and accurately, otherwise a real conversation can't begin. An Ad-Hominem/Polemic attack on Islam simply returns one against you as an Islamophobe. Tennis is good exercise, but our nation deserves better on this subject.

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at February 7, 2008 4:34 PM

Ha-Ha, "enlightener"!

Cease-fire, anyone?

Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 4:38 PM

For a complete exposition on al-Taqiyya by a shia muslim who shows that it is totally islamic:

http://www.al-islam.org/ENCYCLOPEDIA/chapter6b/1.html

Posted by: the poetess at February 7, 2008 4:44 PM

"enlightener",

You know full well that Hamas takes the liberty of lying, not from their filthy little charter, but from their filthy little scripture. Robert has provided chapter and verse time and again, including in the article above. And everytime one of these filthy little terrorists opens their mouth to justify their filthy little murders, they quote their filthy little scriptures.

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 4:54 PM

Semi OT, but I heard on NPR (I know but we have a limited supply of radio stations here) this morning that "an umbrella Taliban" group is going to offer a cease fire to the Pakistan Gov't in Waziristan. Sound familiar?

Posted by: walterc at February 7, 2008 5:02 PM

When are the mainstream news reporters going to start considering these factors in interpreting news from Islamist sources?

The al-Dura vs Karsenty trial resumes in 2 weeks in Paris. The mother of Jerusalem Sbarro Pizzaria bombing victim, Malki Roth, Frimet Roth, called upon the Israeli government to retract its preliminary acceptance of Palestinian's blame for what appears to be a grand deception.

If you'd like to read my article on this:

http://democracybroadcasting.blogspot.com/2008/01/islamists-credibility-and-exposing.html

Posted by: DemoCast at February 7, 2008 5:08 PM

enlightener

Tell Hamas thay have no Islmic credentals. Don't tell us. Tell the murders in Mohammads name that thay are wrong.

Our eyes are open. Mohammad was a thef, muderer, rapist and called for perpetual war on the infadel. Evil acts are performed every day in Mohammads name. Tell the lying-murderers thay are wrong. TELL THEM!

When a Muslim muders in the name of Mohammad and says so. Why not belivie him? His motivation is his alone to interpret.

So take your legalism arguments and tell it to Hamas.

Posted by: Ruebacca at February 7, 2008 5:17 PM

Dear enlightener:

Now Roberto, you now better then to promote a covert political movement as a theological source or any authority. You're making militants the spokespeople of Islam again, and presenting Islam (ex. Quran) as the problem when you know very well that if we are to get anywhere it'll be because Islam is the solution.

If Islam is to be the solution, it will only be when Muslims begin to confront interpretations like this -- which come from other Muslims, instead of blaming me for reporting about them.

The people in Hamas who say this are Muslims. Whether or not they are spokesmen for anything, you are doing nothing to refute their Qur'anic intepretation by acting as if it's something I made up.

Plus you know that verse 16:106 doesn't refer to anything Israel or Abbass are doing, ever did or will ever do to meet the requirement to say something against Islam in a life or death situation as the verses states.

I'm sure many Palestinians would differ with you on this.

Please treat Islam fairly and accurately, otherwise a real conversation can't begin. An Ad-Hominem/Polemic attack on Islam simply returns one against you as an Islamophobe. Tennis is good exercise, but our nation deserves better on this subject.

Can you provide any actual evidence that I've said anything inaccurate here? So far, you haven't. Can a real conversation begin when you make unsubstantiated accusations and blame the messenger instead of acknowledging that there is a problem and working to resolve it?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 7, 2008 5:30 PM

Ironically, a muslim telling the truth about lying.

Now if someone in the U.S. goverment would understand this truth.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at February 7, 2008 5:37 PM

I expect more enlightenment from my enlighteners. That was just a typical drive-by dismissal. I'll bet he's e-mailing HAMAS right now telling them to shut their pie holes. He's got a good thing going over here.

Posted by: Beagle at February 7, 2008 5:39 PM

Hugh and Robert or anyone who would like to answer:

I know Robert says that Islam is the only religion with a developed doctrine, theology and schools of jurisprudence that mandate violence against unbelievers.

My question is this:

If you have to make a single statement that people are unaware of about Islam, that most descriptively encapsulates it, what would it be? Cheers,

P

Posted by: Palamas at February 7, 2008 5:39 PM

“A Muslim is permitted to say things that oppose his beliefs in order to prevent damages or to be saved from death.”

"Prevent damages" can be stretched and twisted to allow any untruth. That leaves two questions for the world's Muslims:

1. Why should anyone who is not a Muslim enter into an agreement with you? Your word is most certainly not your bond. Your signature on a piece of paper isn't worth the ink.

2. Why would we ever believe you are telling the truth about anything? Even when every syllable you utter is factual, your audience will be left wondering. Trust isn't in your vocabulary and statements like the one from this Hamas leader don't help you engender it in those you meet.

Posted by: PMK at February 7, 2008 5:45 PM

When will we (free people) learn that every time a Moslem's mouth moves he could be--or more likely is-- lying?

Sign treatie with these liars? Belive them whatever they might he spouting at any time? This goes for the Saudi declarations of alliance and friendship with the United States--no matter what Bush says or does. And how about Musharaf? How much of what he says and claims should we believe?

The Israeli governments are either idiots, corrupt and corruptible, or incomprehensibly naive when they strive for "peace" with the Arabs.

Does Bush and his "Roadmap" gang truly believe that the Arabs want a "Palestinian" state to stand equal besides a Jewish one? Or does he know that Arab Moslems cannot be trusted and is willing to sell out Israel to please his Saudi "friends and allies?"

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 7, 2008 7:07 PM

The key to this matter is that the spokesman believes what he is saying, that "We're allowed to lie." Then why do we, those who are his avowed enemies, not believe him. In other words, nothing he, or his kith and kin, say at any time, or in any circumstance, need be taken as truth.

Posted by: Shawmut at February 7, 2008 7:51 PM

"make a single statement.."
-- from a posting above

Normally I resist complying with requests, just on principle (born rebel, never take orders), but here's a go: "Islam is a collectivist faith and Total Belief-System that inculcates in its followers that the world is divided between Infidels and Unbelievers, and that a state of permanent war, if not open warfare, must exist between the two, until all barriers to the spread, and dominance, of Islam are removed."

That's one sentence. It's true that I made it longer than one -- than you -- may have expected or desired. But of course you knew I'd push things.

Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 8:20 PM

The first thing we should explain to people who know nothing about islam is that they are NOT bound by the 10 Commandments, and they certainly do not follow the Golden Rule. They do not worship the same God as Jews or Christians. PERIOD

Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 7, 2008 8:25 PM

Roberto, this is my responce:
Bear Abuse with Patience
"Bear patiently with what they say (against you) and leave their company in a polite manner."
The Holy Quran, 73:10
Hugh, the Islam you describe no sane person would recognize. But then what do I know, just another Muslim who obviously must be a lier.

Salamaat pashas,

Posted by: enlightener at February 7, 2008 10:24 PM

>the Islam you describe no sane person would recognize

You say it's not Islam. Other Muslims say it is. Who are we to believe?

You are not out there, telling them that they have it all wrong. Instead you are here, on this web site, telling us that our eyes and ears deceive us.

In fact, that tells us all we need to know.

Posted by: saturnine at February 7, 2008 10:34 PM

Amazing that each and every one of these trolls attacks the messenger (Robert) and wants to 'defend' his revolting Islamic ideology by cooking up strawman arguments.

The 'enlightener' above is the typical case in point.

In the last 4 years I have not once seen an adherent of the Muhammedan faith engage in dialogue, but always in prevarication's, obscurantism and deflection.

What does that tell you?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 7, 2008 10:36 PM

Saturnine,

Its not that simple, just telling them they're wrong. Unfortionatly we have to first unify most of our citizenry, then team up with mainstream reformist networks globally and only then will the nilistic networks small as they are be rolled back and extinguished with no territory or institutions to keep their movement alive. But such coalition building won't happen unless we build on shared vaules with a committment to a prosperous future for all groups.

Every national security policy expert worth his salt has been saying for years that America can't win solo but has to partner with moderate (not dhemmi muslims) forces amongst Muslims. Even folks behind the learning curve like Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney have recently made public comments about how when we make the enemy Islam, its simple America loses.

I'm not a political activist, I'm a policy guy and excuse the directness but when folks in Jihadwatch's world make Islam the problem they are indirectly helping the violent extremists out there. I didn't call them terrorists because I don't want a reporter to write that I said Robert is a terrorist enabler.

I can't read folk's heart, so I'm giving Robert and others here some benefit of the doubt. I fully understand the strategy folks here are following and I don't see it working long term and in the short term it just grants the violent extremists more ammunition in the propoganda war.

Some here think that by planting doubt amongst the average judeo-christo american that a multitude will rise to confront and roll back Islam's progress on our shores and oversees. To that I say wake up and smell the roses, Islam isn't going anywhere and will continue its expansion just like Christianity is in certain quarters.

We as Americans should be debating the strategy of how best to win as Jews, Christians and Muslims in an ever more interdependant and inter-connected world. Instead we have millions of our fellow citizens chasing their tails living in a make believe world fighting a demographic war lost ions ago.

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at February 7, 2008 11:29 PM

"I'm a policy guy and excuse the directness but when folks in Jihadwatch's world make Islam the problem they are indirectly helping the violent extremists out there."
-- from a Muslim apologist above, doing his sly damnedest

No, Jihadwatch does not "make Islam the problem." Islam itself -- what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira -- is what makes Islam the problem. That, and the tenets that naturally arise from those texts, and that, over 1350 years, in many different lands, with many different sets of non-Muslims, have been acted on, by Muslim conquerors determined to kill, or convert, or permanently reduce to that subjugated status of "dhimmi" all those conquered non-Muslims. If we ignore history, and ignore the texts of Islam, then we can all play the game of "Let's Pretend." But playing the game of "Let's Pretend" is what has gotten the countries of Western Europe in the fix they are in. Playing "Let's Pretend" simply allows non-Muslims to continue to ignore reality, continue to turn their heads away, as people in the last century, and more than once, turned their heads away until the reality could not be denied. In the case of Islam there will not be an invasion of Poland or a Pearl Harbor attack or a seizing of Manchuria, but rather a slow and steady conquest. That is why it is important to alert, using nothing more amazing than the most banal and obvious of truths about Islam -- truths that no non-Muslim growing up under Muslim rule, and no apostate from Islam (see Wafa Sultan, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, see Ibn Warraq, see hundreds of others, with their numbers swelling in the Western world all the time), see those great Western scholars of Islam -- Schacht, Jeffery, Snouck Hurgronje, Lammens and so many others -- who studied and wrote about Islam before the Great Inhibition set it, and before Muslims, and their non-Muslim sympathizers, managed to insinuate themselves into academic positions where they have been quite good at keeping out any other viewpoints, and have steadily managed to hire and promote each other, aided of course by grants from Arab governments and institutions and individuals, until they have managed, all over the Western world, to control so much of what is taught about Islam and "Islamic studies" and "Middle Eastern studies." But a few holdouts never were booted out, and nowadays, many in the West, alert to the danger, have simply chosen to gone around, to do without, to ignore, the sly apologists of MESA (google "MESA Nostra" for more), and that has had a salutary effect.

Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 11:55 PM

ions?
http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107Lab/Lab5/Filters/ionsInWater.jpg
"enlightener ?"

Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 8, 2008 12:40 AM

Instead we have millions of our fellow citizens chasing their tails living in a make believe world fighting a demographic war lost ions ago. Salaam,
Posted by: enlightener

What is the demographic war in the make-believe world that we are 'chasing our tails living in'? And who lost it 'ions' ago?

If you want a real conversation, first have it with your co-religionists from Rabat to Bandar Seri Begawan (guess which country that's in!), (not to mention from Anchorage to Auckland), and then, after you people are mostly on the same page, get back to us.

Until then, when we hear that you say one thing in English and another in Arabic, we will assume that what is being said in Arabic is what's valid. We don't need a conversation with you: the conversation your comrades in the ummah have among yourselves when they think no one else is listening tells us whatever we need to know. Please don't insult our intelligence by trying to convince us otherwise.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 8, 2008 2:20 AM

Hugh,

If your desire is to lessen the chance of imperialism and define rights as inalienable to every citizen equally under the law, there's some middle ground to build upon with hundreds of millions. Its been only a few hundred years since the West has started (not completed) its shift from an imperialistic mode to a convictional mode where personal freedom of choice guides policy instead of one where race, religion or some other status was the determinate. It's disengenious to search back to the age of imperialism or to look at modern era machuvillian political movements and say they're doing that due to Islam. We live in an age where treaties and global governance bodies bind all of us together, and its these institutions and agreements providing fairness that'll allow American, Russian or Iranian children to grow up in security.

Infidel Pride, I didn't insult your intellegence but as mark twain said 'what gets us in trouble is not what we don't know so much as what we think we know that just aint so'. If the statement by a hamas official is true and stated in arabic to an arabic newspaper then its as a result of hamas getting challenged on manipulating religion for political purposes and his responce is an insult and a political swipe to Abbass. When you can't deliniate political discourse and its motivations from religious creed then I would remind you of what Mark Twain said a long time ago.

*Note: Please excuse any spelling errors I'm sure my points are getting across, but I'm writing on my blackberry from meetings. Gotta run to another confernece now, this conquest of the west seem like never ending work but according to Hugh we're making progress.

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at February 8, 2008 8:19 AM

Mohamed,

Thanks for your answer, but I must confess that I don't understand it. Can you please explain to me how Qur'an 73:10 refutes Hamas's claim that deceit is allowed in Islam? If a Muslim quotes the verse about not taking unbelievers as awliyat unless you're doing it to guard yourselves against them (3:28), and invokes the hadith quoted in Ibn Kathir about smiling in the faces of some people while cursing them behind their backs, would you in response quote 73:10 to them?

And how exactly would that show them that they're wrong in employing deception?

Looking forward to your clarification on this, and thanks for it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 8, 2008 8:20 AM

Mr. enlightener, what do you think about this article by Rod Dreher?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2006/06/of-bananas-and-mohamed-elibiary.html

Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 8, 2008 11:11 AM

"[W]hen folks in Jihadwatch's world make Islam the problem they are indirectly helping the violent extremists out there."
- Posted by: enlightener

Do you realize when you make this claim you're acknowledging that the "violent extremists" indeed have a legitimate interpretation of Islamic scriptures?

Posted by: saturnine at February 8, 2008 12:19 PM

To quote from above:

"*Note: Please excuse any spelling errors I'm sure my points are getting across, but I'm writing on my blackberry from meetings. Gotta run to another confernece now, this conquest of the west seem like never ending work but according to Hugh we're making progress."

Salaam,
Posted by: enlightener [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 8, 2008 8:19 AM"

2 points;

A Blackberry is arduous to type on for more than a sentence or two. Am I the only BB user who feels this way?

The last sentence sets off my "Trolldar". Doesn't "Salaam" mean "Peace"?

Posted by: Drewbenstein at February 9, 2008 8:11 AM

To debate a moslem is like playing a game where the Infidel loses each time he catches the moslem cheating.

Posted by: thomas. h at February 9, 2008 8:33 AM

Straight from the horses mouth.

Posted by: DaveMate at February 9, 2008 8:17 PM

My apologies on the delayed response but we had a dear Sheikh to me die Friday in Medina and work wouldn't let up.

jihadwatch (Robert), I wouldn't quote 73:10 to someone misunderstanding 3:28. I was quoting 73:10 to the folks on this thread above saying stuff like Islam is filthy or cursing Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) since as you know Islam (don't have the verse # handy but its in the Quran) says to not sit down or hold discussions with those cursing the Quran or Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) so I simply have to ignore them. That rule is not going anywhere and I hope that folks on Jihadwatch, if they are desiring a civic discourse of ideas, would drop the blasphemy talk. Muslims like myself never shied away from anyone wishing to discuss the Quran or the Sunnah with anyone, so long as the discussion's civil and respectful. Apparently for some Christians its hard acting "Christian" now a days.

Answering the Hamas guy quoted, if its accurate, is futile because the upper management of Hamas wouldn't back such non-sense. He's way over-reaching and if he's using 3:28 as his rationale, then he's a misguided fool. You can grab any properly educated Islamic Sheikh in his West Bank village and have him tell this guy that:

1. 3:28 refers to taking non-believers as awlia (political patrons or higher lever then you political allies) "against believers". Something any rational person understands is not any different then what other faith communities preach to increase brotherhood amongst their flocks.

2. Now the second half of the verse allows for taking the political support of non-believers if you fear for your security from other believers. (An example of this would be Saudi Arabia allying with the US in the Cold War and later in the 1st Gulf War against Nasser's Egypt and Saddam's Iraq respectively.

3. In Islamic Law their's something called "al-walaa wal baraa". It covers the issues dealing with what Locke would term the "social contract" in "al-walaa" and how to deal with (folks) the varying degrees of weak belief and disbelief "al-baraa" (whom to get close to and whom to distance oneself from). All the major scholars both inside as well as outside would label Mahmoud Abbass as "walie amr" (ruler/guardian) of the Palestinian people. This is a fact that senior Hamas officials don't question and that's why they publicly have made statement over and over that if Abbass negotiates a peace deal and its backed in a referrendum then they'll accept it.

According to the 'Ikhwani' school of thought on when its allowable to overthrow the ruler, the present circumstances doesn't allow religiously for a number of reasons. But according to the "Islamic Jihad" school of thought, as laid out by Qutb, Al-Zawahiri and others often quoted here Abbass meets the eligability for overthrow and therefore all kinds of things kick in at that point least of which is lying to him.

So in short you can tell this hamas member that if his logic is based on 3:28 then he's bastardizing the verse and trying to use it for a different situation then it was reveled for. Second you can get senior Hamas officials to "re-educate" him for his misunderstanding of company policy. And finally the mainstream Islamic scholars could be called upon to roll back this seditious fitna, again if the story's true.

Simply lying to your "waliee amr" or political ruler because you'd like to carry out a public policy that falls in the ruler's sphere of decision making (war/peace) borders on if not crosses into causing mischief in the land or "hiraba" which the Quran defines as the worst of physical crimes because its against God and punishable by the worst of capitol punishments.

Islam is a divine religion, not a Machiavellian cult cutting corners according to every individual self-described Muslim's ijtihad to build some territorial empire. The hadith you're quoting about smiling while hating is to my recollection not of Prophet Muhammad but of a companion's opinion so essentially one man's opinion and a "baraa" opinion not endorsed by the Ikhwan when dealing with other Muslims (Abbas in this case) so not relevant to this Hamas guy's comments. If I'm wrong let me know and I'd be more than happy to look it up again, but that's what I remember of the gazzillions of hadiths and commentary on the hadiths over the past 14 centuries.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Wallahu Alim (God knows better)

Posted by: enlightener at February 9, 2008 9:03 PM

interestinconundrum,

If you click on the comments field from Rod's Post you can read my thoughts at the time. I don't think they've changed much. Rod's a loser with a career going nowhere and is being slowly squeezed out at his present job for hurting business. The comments I put on Rod's post on Beliefnet at the time, I had also put on Jihadwatch so enjoy.

If you'd like to read about controversies I get caught up in every once in a while, you're welcome to check out our foundation's website section on controversies for the full story:
http://www.freeandjust.org/Controversies.htm

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at February 9, 2008 9:10 PM

saturnine,

Re: Do you realize when you make this claim you're acknowledging that the "violent extremists" indeed have a legitimate interpretation of Islamic scriptures?

No, that's not what I said. I said you help them. Now I didn't say you're helping them because you're proving they have a "legitimate interpretation of Islamic scriptures".

For the record so everyone's clear, not that I haven't written this in a bunch of Op-Eds and said it in speeches already:

When we (Americans) publicly argue the point that Islam is a xxxx (fill in your uncivil adjective of choice) we're helping the "violent extremist" point to our discourse and sell it at the grassroots across the Muslim world that America is waging a "crusade against Islam". We're in a war of ideas as some like to put it, so communications and messaging is your tanks and planes. Delivering ammunition to the enemy during wartime used to be called treason. Think about it.

One might choose to not care sitting behind a computer screen in some suburban home somewhere in America, but there are real Americans catching the blowback of that with plenty of unnecessary funerals. Look at the Abu Ghraib disaster as an example of this 'honor defense factor'. Rush Limbaugh might choose to joke about it, but you won't find a single military commander in Iraq that won't say that it caused increased resources being directed to the "violent extremists" and unnecessary dead Americans.

All I'm saying is not to silence discussion but to adopt a civil discourse when debating issues instead of just simply being "unchristian".

Posted by: enlightener at February 9, 2008 9:26 PM

Dear Mohamed,

Thanks for your reply.

Answering the Hamas guy quoted, if its accurate, is futile because the upper management of Hamas wouldn't back such non-sense.

So are you saying that Khaled Meshaal etc. would reject religious deception on principle? Can you please point me to some evidence for this?

1. 3:28 refers to taking non-believers as awlia (political patrons or higher lever then you political allies) "against believers". Something any rational person understands is not any different then what other faith communities preach to increase brotherhood amongst their flocks.

Actually, I've been attending Christian worship regularly for about 25 years, mostly Catholic but also Orthodox, and have never, ever heard a Christian preacher say anything like this. Can you please provide some evidence of this principle being taught in other faith communities?

2. Now the second half of the verse allows for taking the political support of non-believers if you fear for your security from other believers. (An example of this would be Saudi Arabia allying with the US in the Cold War and later in the 1st Gulf War against Nasser's Egypt and Saddam's Iraq respectively.

Actually Ibn Kathir and the exegetes he quotes take it to mean that Muslims may do this if they fear for their security from unbelievers. Can you please supply me with some references to Islamic sources that take your view?

3. In Islamic Law their's something called "al-walaa wal baraa". It covers the issues dealing with what Locke would term the "social contract"

Are you possibly thinking of Rousseau?

...in "al-walaa" and how to deal with (folks) the varying degrees of weak belief and disbelief "al-baraa" (whom to get close to and whom to distance oneself from). All the major scholars both inside as well as outside would label Mahmoud Abbass as "walie amr" (ruler/guardian) of the Palestinian people. This is a fact that senior Hamas officials don't question and that's why they publicly have made statement over and over that if Abbass negotiates a peace deal and its backed in a referrendum then they'll accept it.

But only as a temporary truce, without having discarded their overall goal of destroying Israel utterly, no?

According to the 'Ikhwani' school of thought on when its allowable to overthrow the ruler, the present circumstances doesn't allow religiously for a number of reasons. But according to the "Islamic Jihad" school of thought, as laid out by Qutb, Al-Zawahiri and others often quoted here Abbass meets the eligability for overthrow and therefore all kinds of things kick in at that point least of which is lying to him.

Are you an Ikhwani? In any case, whether you are or not, the Ikhwan is engaged in a program of asserting elements of Sharia in the U.S., until it is the only law of the land -- or at least so Ikhwan leaders say in documents that came to light during the HLF trial. So they have the same goal as what you term the "Islamic Jihad" school, just different methods, no?

So in short you can tell this hamas member that if his logic is based on 3:28 then he's bastardizing the verse and trying to use it for a different situation then it was reveled for.

Under what circumstances would deception be permissible, if any?

Second you can get senior Hamas officials to "re-educate" him for his misunderstanding of company policy. And finally the mainstream Islamic scholars could be called upon to roll back this seditious fitna, again if the story's true.

Simply lying to your "waliee amr" or political ruler because you'd like to carry out a public policy that falls in the ruler's sphere of decision making (war/peace) borders on if not crosses into causing mischief in the land or "hiraba" which the Quran defines as the worst of physical crimes because its against God and punishable by the worst of capitol punishments.

This assumes a Muslim waliee amr, whereas the verse seems to assume a non-Muslim waliee amr. Can you please point me to an Islamic source for your perspective on this verse?

Islam is a divine religion, not a Machiavellian cult cutting corners according to every individual self-described Muslim's ijtihad to build some territorial empire. The hadith you're quoting about smiling while hating is to my recollection not of Prophet Muhammad but of a companion's opinion so essentially one man's opinion and a "baraa" opinion not endorsed by the Ikhwan when dealing with other Muslims (Abbas in this case) so not relevant to this Hamas guy's comments. If I'm wrong let me know and I'd be more than happy to look it up again, but that's what I remember of the gazzillions of hadiths and commentary on the hadiths over the past 14 centuries.

Yes, Ibn Kathir says its Abu Ad-Darda. He also quotes Al-Hasan approving of taqiyya. Why does Ibn Kathir regard these as worth quoting, if they contradicted Muhammad's view? How do these quotes square with Muhammad's statement that "war is deceit," and allowing for lying between a husband and wife and during wartime?

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Wallahu Alim (God knows better)

Thanks very much for them. I look forward to your further clarifications on this.

As for Dreher: does his fading career, if it is fading, justify the threat you made to him?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 10, 2008 3:51 PM

Enlightener, thanks for the response.

When we (Americans) publicly argue the point that Islam is a xxxx (fill in your uncivil adjective of choice) we're helping the "violent extremist" point to our discourse and sell it at the grassroots across the Muslim world that America is waging a "crusade against Islam".

The fact that "uncivil" comments can cause followers of a peaceful religion to behave in a decidedly unpeaceful manner is disturbing. It stands to reason, then, that the "violent extremists" must be able to make a credible case for violence from the religious texts.

But earlier, you said something different:

"[W]hen folks in Jihadwatch's world make Islam the problem they are indirectly helping the violent extremists out there."

No one on this web site is "mak[ing] Islam the problem". The jihadists are doing that entirely on their own.

Posted by: saturnine at February 10, 2008 9:05 PM

Robert,

Re: So are you saying that Khaled Meshaal etc. would reject religious deception on principle? Can you please point me to some evidence for this?

I don't know whether Khaled Mishal would "reject religious deception on principle" or not. I've never met the guy and in my trip to the Holy Lands I've purposely stayed away from the tours that would have allowed me to meet the Hamas or Hizbullah senior leadership. Look how panicy the Right gets when I dare speak out that our understanding of Islam and Islamic movements is misguided, can you imagine if I sat down and discussed public policy with designated terrorist groups. Plus I'm interested in building bridges and our government's not interested in bridge building with Hamas or Hizbullah. Our national policy is that we'd like to see those two groups extinguished off the planet, not negotiate with them. Khaled's email is hoood88@hotmail.com if you'd like to email him and ask him, or you can contact any number of think tanks both in DC, London or the Middle East that could get you to him.

That wasn't my point anyways. I said that Hamas's public policy is that they accept Abbas's rule over the entire Palestinian people, therefore their "walee amr". The article you posted gave us a situation where a Hamas member used "religious deception" as you called it against another Muslim believer. One of two options here, if one accepts Abbas as his "walee amr" then he can't lie to him simply to advance a political agenda. If this local Hamas guy's intentions were to mislead Abbas (a possibility none the less) then its not something that can be justified by 3:28 or any verse according to any "religious interpretation school" unless he removes Abbas as his "walee amr" but then he's no longer Hamas but Islamic Jihad. And if he (the local Hamas guy) does that, then that's counter to official Hamas policy and the Islamic religious establishment.

Re: Actually, I've been attending Christian worship regularly for about 25 years, mostly Catholic but also Orthodox, and have never, ever heard a Christian preacher say anything like this. Can you please provide some evidence of this principle being taught in other faith communities?

You've seriously never heard a Christian Priest/Pastor/Minister preach for Christians to increase their interactions and partnerships with other Christian believers whether in the socio-economic or political spheres? Come on now, where've you been.

Re: Actually Ibn Kathir and the exegetes he quotes take it to mean that Muslims may do this if they fear for their security from unbelievers. Can you please supply me with some references to Islamic sources that take your view?

Did I miss something, why is everything Ibn Kathir here? There are gazillions of tafsirs, all with some good and some outdated interpretations. You are aware that each generation is supposed to develop its scholars to review the original texts (Quran and Sunnah) then interpret it for their time and place. I don't know the exact time, Ibn Kathir is like from a thousand years ago or something.

You asked for religious sources to support the examples I gave you that the verse allowed for the KSA (Saudi Arabia) seeking political support from the USA in the Cold War and the 1st Gulf War. Not only the KSA Religious establishment of course supported this, but during the 1st Gulf War I recall one of the highest global Sunni Scholars at the time (Shk. El-Sharawy of Egypt) also did so there you have Salafi and Traditional. So there are plenty of mainstream Islamic religious authorities that say you can seek the political cover of a non-muslim nation in opposition to a hostile Muslim nation to your security. Right now isn't that the position of the KSA's religious authorities vis-a-vis American protection in the Gulf from Iran?

Re: But only as a temporary truce, without having discarded their overall goal of destroying Israel utterly, no?

Look I'm not looking to play political games here. If you're as well read as you claim, then you're aware of Prophet Muhammad's hadiths that a Muslim doesn't break a peace pact/covenant and even protecting emissaries/diplomats from enemy nations even during times of war. And you should be aware of the numerous Quranic verses dealing with peace and war issues commanding Muslims to accept peace when an enemy sues for peace even if its to the Muslim's disadvantage.

Shk. Yaseen, the assassinated spiritual guide of Hamas and senior MB leader in Palestine at the time (they're not the same thing), presented Israel with a Hudna (temporary truce as you called it) for 100 years. Any analyst with real understanding of the Middle East region would tell you that a 100 year hudna is worth more than the 30 year "secular" camp david peace deal Israel got with Egypt. It seems to me that Israel's being short sited and Machiavellian in their negotiations at the moment, too dependent on their military might but that balance won't last anywhere near 100 years.

Israel wants the West Bank, and until it makes up its mind to give it up for a Palestinian State we're going to continue the charade that the Palestinians aren't responsible peace partners and the propaganda campaign to sell that to the American people through targeted campaigns with their varying rationals to the different segments of American society. Now I'm not a lobbyist on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but I did tour it first hand and that's my assessment- Israel's not ready to give up the West Bank and it isn't about security.

Didn't you write a book or something on the Crusades? Sorry I didn't read it, assumed it to be historical revisionism (not too proud to admit I stereotype too). Saladin didn't start the final battle at hittin, it was the neo-con wing of the Crusaders who thought they can egg him into a fight before he's too strong for them to defeat - devastating gamble for them in hindsight. In today's context that's futile because it would require an American-Israeli axis to keep the entire "Greater Middle East" as Bush calls it weaker militarily then Israel forever. Good luck sustaining such a policy without the American people's support.

Re: Are you an Ikhwani? In any case, whether you are or not, the Ikhwan is engaged in a program of asserting elements of Sharia in the U.S., until it is the only law of the land -- or at least so Ikhwan leaders say in documents that came to light during the HLF trial. So they have the same goal as what you term the "Islamic Jihad" school, just different methods, no?

No I'm not now, nor have I ever been an Ikhwani or a member in any organized group. I am totally moved by my convictions, an open book and if convinced with rational have changed views in the past and would likely do so again in the future. For the record I come from the Elibiary (paternal) family and Basiouni (maternal) family of Egypt. Both families are large, well known and contain some very respectable folks and some goofy folks (so just like everyone else in the world). To the best of my knowledge I'm not aware of any of my family members in Egypt ever voting, much less joining the Ikhwan. Even two generations ago the members who fought the British occupation forces of Egypt did it under secular nationalist groups and not the Ikhwan. My family is religious and conservative but stays out of politics, so I've met and known numerous Ikhwani members and leaders over the years here and oversees. I don't hide those and have even put it in published Op-Eds I've written like this one for the DMN after the HLF trial that I attended and reviewed all the evidence for: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-elibiary_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.420f259.html

My op-eds sometimes get reprinted on everything from other newspapers around the country to the Columbia School of Journalism, the Texas Democratic Party website (note: I'm not a democrat) and even on the Muslim Brotherhood's Official Website like here: http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp?ID=14497&SectionID=81
All that's is not anything I control. I've spent many years studying various Islamic movements over the past couple of centuries from Nigeria to Indonesia and will be receiving an accredited college certification by summer in all that stuff. I've always loved history, so studying the Contemporary Ideological Islamic Movements is a hobby.

My personal opinion on the Ikhwan is that they are severely misunderstood by many Muslims as well as non-Muslims. Some people give them way more influence then they are really responsible for. Other people fear their agenda to the point where they're really talking about something other then what the Ikhwan are really advocating for. And then others don't really understand the structure of the Ikhwan, their curriculum and that there are really multiple Ikhwans. The Ikhwan themselves haven't necessarily wanted to clarify the picture for outsiders either, because of their precarious state in most countries they operate in. I don't mind discussing them or any Islamic movement, but as I wrote in my op-ed above the Government and by extension many on the Right here in America are mis/under-informed on this topic, and I'd simply refer them to the Mark Twain quote I put above. About half of Americans hold the same view that you stated Robert that there isn't any difference between the Islamists and the Jihadists for lack of better terms. I think that is quite shallow and I'm not trying to insult you, because from your website I take it that you present yourself as an expert on Jihad and not Islamic Movements.

Re: Under what circumstances would deception be permissible, if any?

I would assume the common sense one of when your trying to save a life since the Shariah protects life, but that's not a fatwa. You should probably search for writings by mainstream jurisprudence authorities like Al-Azhar's Fatwa department or others to explain the mechanics. But I want to say that when you present it as "deception" then I have a problem with that, because obviously every Abrahamic religion doesn't promote deception. Religion obviously helps us to work towards our values, and Islam helping us to work towards the shariah (life, religion, mind, etc.) is no exception.

For example one time not too long ago I heard a man deliver a sermon at a Mosque where he was trying to promote mending fences amongst bickering spouses so he said that a Muslim should always try to mend fences to promote harmony in the home and that means you can go to the disgruntled wife and say that the husband told you that he misses her and loves her a lot. You can then go to the husband and tell him that his wife misses him and is sorry. The Khateeb (sermon giver) then said that it was ok to lie to bring folks together and left it at that.

After the sermon I talked with this man privately and told him that while telling Muslims to help mend fences between bickering spouses is good just saying that its ok to lie and leaving it at that is not a well thought through fatwa and not how scholars would approach it. Obviously the social ramifications of a thousand folks hearing the sermon then running around thinking its ok to lie if their intention with their limited and ad-hoc mental thought processes is to bring people together could end up causing more problems then it ever fixes. He agreed with me and agreed to change his khutbah (sermon) moving forward. Now I don't look at this khateeb as promoting "religious deception", I look at as a well intentioned individual who over stepped his expertise level and issued a poorly thought through religious edict from the mimbar at a Mosque.

Re: This assumes a Muslim waliee amr, whereas the verse seems to assume a non-Muslim waliee amr. Can you please point me to an Islamic source for your perspective on this verse?

The verse doesn't mention anything about who a waliee amr is. As an fyi the waliee amr in the case you presented of a Palestinian Hamas guy is always a Muslim, who else would you present as a waliee amr, the Israeli PM? The verse talks about taking non-believers as "awlieaa" not as "waliee amr". You can have multiple "awlieaa" (political allies/guardians) but you can only have one "waliee amr" in the war and peace issues. It gets more complex here in America since we're a religious minority and that's why some smart Faqihs (Islamic scholars) did a lot of work many decades ago in a field called the "Fiqh of Minorities" so that Muslim minorities growing up here in America and the West like myself have even clearer guidelines.

Re: "war is deceit"

I'd like to know of anyone from Sun Su 2500 years ago to Clausewitz who hasn't taught that war is about deceiving your enemy. You send "bait" troops up an enemy's flank to have him shift his forces and drive up the middle to slit his forces in half and kill them for example. Now isn't that deceiving him with that flank attack?

Much non-sense has been made of this statement, but you should be asking yourself if Muhammad would approve a covert war against civilians. What are the rules of warfare that Muhammad preached and the Quran mandates? Is there a current state of warfare according to Islamic Jurisprudence at this moment in time between Islam and America? Who has the authority to declare such a war? If their isn't a declared state of war according to Islam, then what is the status of a group of individuals (ex. Al-Qaeda) taking the lead in declaring such a war? And finally how do you deny and role-up groups that hijack an authority not theirs in the first place to declare war?

Re: As for Dreher: does his fading career, if it is fading, justify the threat you made to him?

Now come one, who's libeling whom here. I never threatened Rod and I don't think I have to say anything more than what I wrote on JW previously and his Beliefnet Blog comments. Rod's a hating bigot with a clear agenda for anyone who's looked at his full record from his participation in a forum on whether its a good idea to "nuke Mecca" to describing Muslims as "termites" on his blog to the way he puts forward half-truths about the radicalization problems and deamonizes any Muslim who dares to say he's wrong and here's why. I guess the best thing I can say that every mainstream political and media authority from Dallas to DC knows what Rod's all about and they've decided to ignore him and move on. America wants solutions, not a Crusade.

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at February 10, 2008 11:12 PM

saturnine,

Can we drop the sarcasm, please? You know what I mean and calling Islam the "Religion of Peace" is a swipe not necessary and degrades the discussion unnecessarily.

Bottom line my point's clear, if you can't see that providing the enemy with propaganda arrows in their quiver is harmful to our side then I can't help you. Debate and blame Islam all you want, but in the meantime the enemy advances.

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at February 10, 2008 11:18 PM

Mohamed,

I don't know whether Khaled Mishal would "reject religious deception on principle" or not. I've never met the guy and in my trip to the Holy Lands I've purposely stayed away from the tours that would have allowed me to meet the Hamas or Hizbullah senior leadership. Look how panicy the Right gets when I dare speak out that our understanding of Islam and Islamic movements is misguided, can you imagine if I sat down and discussed public policy with designated terrorist groups.

Now, you made an assertion about Hamas leadership. I asked you to back it up, and you start telling me how perilous it would be for you to meet with them. Yet you don't have to present firsthand evidence. You could have pointed me to something Meshaal said or wrote. It's good, if you're going to make assertions, to be able to back them up with evidence, no?

You've seriously never heard a Christian Priest/Pastor/Minister preach for Christians to increase their interactions and partnerships with other Christian believers whether in the socio-economic or political spheres? Come on now, where've you been.

All over the country, for 25 years, and no, I've never heard this. I suspect you are extrapolating from your experience within Islam, but in any case, there is no verse like Qur'an 3:28 in the Christian Scriptures.

Re: Actually Ibn Kathir and the exegetes he quotes take it to mean that Muslims may do this if they fear for their security from unbelievers. Can you please supply me with some references to Islamic sources that take your view?

Did I miss something, why is everything Ibn Kathir here? There are gazillions of tafsirs, all with some good and some outdated interpretations. You are aware that each generation is supposed to develop its scholars to review the original texts (Quran and Sunnah) then interpret it for their time and place. I don't know the exact time, Ibn Kathir is like from a thousand years ago or something.

Look at what I wrote: "Can you please supply me with some references to Islamic sources that take your view?" In other words, I was asking you for alternatives to Ibn Kathir's explanation of 3:28. In response, you assert that such exist, but don't give me any. Can you please supply me with even one specific reference to a tafsir for Al-i-Imran 28 that bears out your view?

Meanwhile, why am I asking about Ibn Kathir? Because he is the one who clearly says that religious deception is permitted. Am I to understand that those Muslims who say that his is one of the four most important Sunni tafasir, and that it remains one of the most popular of all tafasir, are wrong?

And as for your assertion that interpretation must be new in every time and place, it contradicts the prevailing notion that the gate of ijtihad has been closed for 1000 years or so. What would you say to a Muslim who told you that the gate of ijtihad was closed, which is, after all, the mainstream view?

You asked for religious sources to support the examples I gave you that the verse allowed for the KSA (Saudi Arabia) seeking political support from the USA in the Cold War and the 1st Gulf War. Not only the KSA Religious establishment of course supported this, but during the 1st Gulf War I recall one of the highest global Sunni Scholars at the time (Shk. El-Sharawy of Egypt) also did so there you have Salafi and Traditional. So there are plenty of mainstream Islamic religious authorities that say you can seek the political cover of a non-muslim nation in opposition to a hostile Muslim nation to your security. Right now isn't that the position of the KSA's religious authorities vis-a-vis American protection in the Gulf from Iran?

Can you point me to where I can find scholarly rulings on this? I know that part of Al-Qaeda's critique of the House of Saud has rested on Qur'an 3:28 and 5:51 (don't take Jews and Christians as your awliya) precisely because of this. How has the House of Saud answered them on Islamic, rather than simply pragmatic, grounds?

Look I'm not looking to play political games here. If you're as well read as you claim, then you're aware of Prophet Muhammad's hadiths that a Muslim doesn't break a peace pact/covenant and even protecting emissaries/diplomats from enemy nations even during times of war.

What about Hudaibiyya?

And you should be aware of the numerous Quranic verses dealing with peace and war issues commanding Muslims to accept peace when an enemy sues for peace even if its to the Muslim's disadvantage.

I am also aware of the numerous modern commentators, including S.K. Malik ("The Qur'anic Concept of War"), Abdullah Ibn Humaid ("Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah"), Imam Nyazee ("The Methodology of Ijtihad") and many others, who say that such cessations of hostilities are temporary, and do not override the imperative to spread the rule of Islam (and Sharia) over the world by whatever means, including but not limited to violence. If you oppose this, how would you answer such arguments when they are advanced by your fellow Muslims?

Any analyst with real understanding of the Middle East region would tell you that a 100 year hudna is worth more than the 30 year "secular" camp david peace deal Israel got with Egypt.

"Any analyst with real understanding of the Middle East region" -- that's an empty argument from authority. In any case, I have no respect for the hollow and self-defeating Camp David accords.

It seems to me that Israel's being short sited and Machiavellian in their negotiations at the moment, too dependent on their military might but that balance won't last anywhere near 100 years.

Are we looking at the same Israel? Ready to negotiate away half of Jerusalem?

Israel wants the West Bank, and until it makes up its mind to give it up for a Palestinian State we're going to continue the charade that the Palestinians aren't responsible peace partners and the propaganda campaign to sell that to the American people through targeted campaigns with their varying rationals to the different segments of American society. Now I'm not a lobbyist on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but I did tour it first hand and that's my assessment- Israel's not ready to give up the West Bank and it isn't about security.

I was there not too long ago myself, but never mind. What I am wondering is, why was there no push for a Palestinian state when Egypt had Gaza and Jordan the West Bank, 1948-1967?

Didn't you write a book or something on the Crusades? Sorry I didn't read it, assumed it to be historical revisionism (not too proud to admit I stereotype too).

"Too"? I don't.

Saladin didn't start the final battle at hittin, it was the neo-con wing of the Crusaders who thought they can egg him into a fight before he's too strong for them to defeat - devastating gamble for them in hindsight.

"Neo-con wing"? A bit anachronistic in this context, no?

In today's context that's futile because it would require an American-Israeli axis to keep the entire "Greater Middle East" as Bush calls it weaker militarily then Israel forever. Good luck sustaining such a policy without the American people's support.

Clearly my Crusades book is not all you haven't read. You apparently have no idea what I have written about Bush's Iraqi democracy project.

About half of Americans hold the same view that you stated Robert that there isn't any difference between the Islamists and the Jihadists for lack of better terms. I think that is quite shallow and I'm not trying to insult you, because from your website I take it that you present yourself as an expert on Jihad and not Islamic Movements.

I didn't say there was no difference. I said, when the goals are the same although the means differ, people should take note of the goals. I stand by that.

After the sermon I talked with this man privately and told him that while telling Muslims to help mend fences between bickering spouses is good just saying that its ok to lie and leaving it at that is not a well thought through fatwa and not how scholars would approach it.

I trust you know that there is a hadith in which Muhammad says that lying is permitted to help mend fences between bickering spouses.

The verse doesn't mention anything about who a waliee amr is.

Maybe not, but Ibn Kathir (why him again? Because, as I explained above, he is the one who says this, and I'm still hoping you'll point me to contrary tafasir) assumes a non-Muslim waliee amr.

As an fyi the waliee amr in the case you presented of a Palestinian Hamas guy is always a Muslim, who else would you present as a waliee amr, the Israeli PM?

Hamas seems to have been referring to Israel and the West, yes.

Is there a current state of warfare according to Islamic Jurisprudence at this moment in time between Islam and America?

Certainly many Salafis and others would answer yes to that question.

As for your continued libels of Rod Dreher, they are beneath contempt, and don't speak well of your professed interest in honest discourse. Nonetheless, I'm still here.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 11, 2008 8:55 AM

Enlightener,

Can we drop the sarcasm, please? You know what I mean and calling Islam the "Religion of Peace" is a swipe not necessary and degrades the discussion unnecessarily.

I wasn't being sarcastic. It's interesting that you took it that way.

Bottom line my point's clear, if you can't see that providing the enemy with propaganda arrows in their quiver is harmful to our side then I can't help you. Debate and blame Islam all you want, but in the meantime the enemy advances.

The Bush administration clearly supports this view. It has twisted itself into pretzel shapes to avoid mentioning the ideology motivating the enemy. Once in a while something leaks out, but it's quickly retracted or parried.

In any case, it doesn't seem to matter. The "violent extremists" can and do point to plenty of other perceived attacks, insults, and slights to justify their actions. Or they just concoct them.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you want to "help" me. What purpose would it serve? There's a fire burning in your town, and you want to help me?

Posted by: saturnine at February 11, 2008 11:46 AM

Robert,

I never made a statement that Hamas doesn't believe in deception in principle, so don't build up a straw man here. I would even assume that as a covert political movement that its part of their field manual operationally speaking on some level. What I said is that Hamas accepts Abbas as the entire Palestinian people's "walee amr" so deceiving him is not allowed under any circumstances on issues related to war and peace. Now if your not aware of their acceptance of Abbas as the "walee amr" of the Palestinian people and Arafat before him, then that's a different issue and I'd point you to the State Department, Arab League and Palestinian press where they've many public pronouncements accepting the rule of the PLO's Chairman.

Don't know where you lived but here in Dallas and everywhere I've seen Evangelicals, one sees them trying to grow their movement by promoting Christian inter-cooperation. If you ever come back to Dallas you can go check out the Christian Brothers Automotive Shop in my neighborhood and then tell me they don't exist.

Look as the resident expert on Jihad focused tafsir, I would have expected you to be aware of all the major tafsirs out there so I'm shocked that you focus so much on Ibn Kathir and his commentary on other simple people's opinions (heart hatred and whatever). Though it isn't my responsibility, here's two major and mainstream tafsirs of the 3:28 verse you keep misinterpreting:

1. Tafsir al-Jalalayn from about five centuries ago is well respected globally by scholars and laymen alike for its simplicity to understand when reading it. Here's the english translation of the tafsir on 3:28:
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=28&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
"Let not the believers take the disbelievers as patrons, rather than, that is, instead of, the believers — for whoever does that, that is, [whoever] takes them as patrons, does not belong to, the religion of, God in anyway — unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts: this was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it. God warns you, He instills fear in you, of His Self, [warning] that He may be wrathful with you if you take them as patrons; and to God is the journey’s end, the return, and He will requite you."

2. Tafsir Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi is another well known tafsir from about a thousand years ago done in the classic style of tafsir science:
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=28&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
(Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers…) [3:28]. Said Ibn 'Abbas: “A group of Jews including al-Hajjaj ibn 'Amr, Kahmas ibn Abi al-Huqayq and Qays ibn Zayd used to keep close company with a group of Helpers to try to make them renounce their religion. And so a group of people comprising Rifa'ah ibn al-Mundhir, 'Abd Allah ibn Jubayr and Sa'id ibn Khaythamah said to this group of Helpers: 'Stay away from these Jews and beware of keeping their company lest they drive you away from your religion'. The group of Helpers refused to stop seeing them or keep their company, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. And al-Kalbi said: “This verse was revealed about the hypocrites: 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy and his companions. They allied themselves with the Jews and the idolaters, supplying them with information, hoping that they will have the upper hand over the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse, warning the believers against acting like them”. Juwaybir reported from al-Dahhak that Ibn 'Abbas said: “This verse was revealed about 'Ubadah ibn al-Samit who was among those who took part in Badr and a trusted man. He had allies from among the Jews. And when the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, marched to the Battle of the Confederates, 'Ubadah said: 'O Prophet of Allah! I have with me five hundred men from the Jews, and I am of the opinion to take them with me to impress the enemy. Because of this, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers)' ”.

______________________________________

As you can see from above, the verse you keep quoting is from a specific instance and Jalalayn's tafsir is very straight forward to understand for the modern man and is rational. If I had my way on updating the works of Asbab Al-Nuzul, I would just change the last sentence to say "guardians" instead of "friends" but Ibn Kathir and Yusuf Ali's translations make the same mistake there too.

You're not wrong that Ibn Kathir is still popular, but where I think your take's different then a normal Muslim is that you give it too much weight. If an Imam was to stand up and issue a fatwa only based on Ibn Kathir or any single scholar's commentary then it'd be seen as a weak fatwa and not even considered by mainstream authorities. He'd need to conduct a comprehensive study of the entire Quran, Sunnah and all the major tafsirs of the Quran and the ahadieth before his fatwa could be considered as properly researched for consideration. Would we take a Law Professor's commentary on the Constitution from centuries ago blindly now, or is there a rigorous academic review process before any Brief's written?

I maintain relations with hundreds of Mosque authorities, Imams and Scholars from around the globe. I don't know of anyone who doesn't accept that time, place, culture and other factors are to be considered when reviewing and publishing fatwas today. I hear online about the doors of ijthad been closed for a thousand years or whatever, but I really haven't come up against any closed doors on any issues involving my life. Perhaps you can point to something specific that "interpretation by scholars" is forbidden today on?

The House of Saud didn't answer Al-Qaeda's religious argument, and couldn't if they tried anyways. The KSA's religious establishment, Wahhabi scholars as some call them here, is who answered the charges and these guy's don't base their arguments on pragmatism, they use theology. I don't have any clue right now where one'd get the fatwa where they refute that, but I'll ask and see. Remember though that in my post above I also said that next to the KSA scholars, Al-Azhar and Shk. El-Sharawy at the time also endorsed it.

What about Hudaybiah? During that time the Muslims were essentially a tribe in a tribal society governing structure. They had tribal peace pacts with other tribes for security. The Muslims kept their end of the bargain and the treaty collapsed when a non-Muslim tribe allied with the Muslims' enemy murdered an allied tribe of the Muslims thereby canceling the treaty and relaunching hostilities. Hostilities that Muslims won with the nearly 100% peaceful take-over of Mecca. Where's the problem here? I know that some try to paint Hudaybiah as a temporary pact until Muslims are strong enough to take over, but that's historical revisionism because there is no proof and even counter-proof like the Hadith I quoted above exist that Prophet Muhammad was going to break the treaty himself. Now I'm aware of media reports that Arafat said that the Oslo Accords were his Hudaybiah in Arabic though I never heard it, but if its true then my response would be that the man is better off being straight forward. Arafat is also a secular and not a religious authority by any means.

Yeah its the same Israel, just different halves of the population I guess.

I wasn't around in 1948-67, but I assume it was because the Arabs hadn't decided to let Israel be yet but thought they could remake the region's borders unilaterally with Soviet support through Pan-Arab Nationalism. After '67 things changed and it took half of Israel till 1993's Camp David Accords to recognize that the Arabs wanted to negotiate so they can move on to their bigger goal.

I would argue that their is a difference in the end goal of the Islamists and the Jihadists. Seeing their end goal as simply "Islamic Rule by Shariah" is superficial, because the devil's in the details. Like for example the structure of government, any checks and balances, independent judiciary or simply a centralized autocratic system calling itself Islamic. Other differences would include the role of religious scholars in the development of state legislation, is it advisory or guardian. And one could go down the list, so after examining it all one finds that human liberty simply can't exist in one at all and is promotable though the other though using a different methodology then the liberal west is familiar with.

You keep on saying that Ibn Kathir assumes a non-Muslim "waliee amr" and that's not correct. Ibn Kathir's interpretation assumes non-Muslim "awliaa" not a non-Muslim "waliee amr". I would refer you to my last post where I said that one can have multiple "awliaa", but ultimately has one "waliee amr" or "Amir" if your familiar with that term. Check out the famous Asbab al-Nuzul tafsir I pasted above, it narrates for you the specific instance this verse was revealed for. In that instance the 500 Jewish military allies of Ubadah ibn al-Samit would be his "awliaa" not his "waliee amr". His "waliee amr" would be Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Look Robert there is no denying that there is a huge geo-political struggle between America and various allies verses Muslims but it isn't because America is at war with Islam in its totality. In 2005 I had the Saudi National Satalite Channel call up our foundation and request an interview to discuss this very issue. After much deliberation we hesitantly approved it and I gave the interview in our foundation's office with a copy of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence hung up behind me that was broadcast during Ramadan (mega sweeps month) in Saudi Arabia. We could write volumes on this, but the rule for declaring a "war" in Islam are clear and they have not been met.

Now is UBL trying to usurp authority not his, of course he is and that's their Achilles heel not a philosophical/theological discussion on deception, Jihad or what have you. For example in UBL's last video much of the media punditry were talking about his beard being dyed. They focused on frivilious observations like the guy looks younger. The reality is that the classical era scholars had said that dying your beard is not allowed unless for "Amir el-Moomineen" or "Walie Amr" of the Muslims. UBL was never granted that title, though he indirectly tries to usurp it via political arguments that as amir of Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda itself being the "vanguard defending Islam". Its actions like this where these political activists (ex. UBL) over-reach and are slapped down by Salafi scholars like Shk. Sulayman Odah and others.

Concerning Rod, there's nothing contemptible in what I say about the guy. He's a bigot, simple as that. He can choose to reform his approach and stop trying to play the grand inquisitor of American Muslims like we're 2nd class temporary residents and I'll stop using the bigot word. I know you two are buddies, but with hundreds of reporters I've met over the years and many I don't care for Rod's the only one I've ever locked horns with and called a bigot. I really have nothing more to say about Rod, and I'm not his latest problem anyways. His latest fight's with another Mohamed, I don't talk to Rod anymore anyways. I just can't accept 2nd class status for my kids in this country. Non-negotiable. I've got a long track record and I've never denied anyone their freedom of speech, so Rod could discuss whatever topic he'd like without the hostile bigotry and he'd never hear from me or any American Muslim for that matter. I never threatened him or anyone, even commentators on JW/LGF figured out the Eddie Murphy analogy and saw the humor in it. Rod choose to pretend he was threatened because he's got no responses to the arguments presented with and had a platform to run and say what he'd like without any editor checking it. It was only folks pre-disposed to hatred of Muslims who reprinted Rod. As an fyi, before any flareups happened between myself and Rod I had offered to take him to lunch and answer his questions but he was never interested to sit down with anyone. The only Muslims he's ever sat down with, he's run after the meeting and published misquotes of what they said in order to defame Islam and his bosses can verify that for you. Gotta love the age of the internet, wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who said pre-internet that while the truth's putting on its boots a lie's half way around the world.

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at February 11, 2008 12:18 PM

saturnine,

It isn't just the Bush Administration, though they were stubburn in the begining. Any future adminsitration no matter how right-wing during the election, will have to moderate once in office and realize reality.

1. American can't win alone and this talk about a WW4 is b/s for domestic political consumption.
2. Making Islam the problem is counter-productive and aids the enemy's propaganda campaign against America.
3. Muslim majority societies will have to be allowed to structure themselves as they see fit and that includes public space for the "Islam is the solution" crowd instead of imposing Secularism/Liberalism on them.

Take care,

Posted by: enlightener at February 11, 2008 12:28 PM

Mr. Elibiary,

I read the tafsir that you provided and although there are minor differences and some differing specific points of clarication, I do not see a prohibition against lying.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn:
..."this was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it."

The clarification in historical terms is vague at best.

Tafsir Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi specifically clarifies the position of warning believers of the act of taking disbelievers as friends over fellow believers, out of concern for corruption of the believers, deemed as hypocrites.

The commentary does not address the permission/prohibition of deceit against non-believers at all, although it does contain the systemic overtone of believer vesus disbeliever.

When compared to the words in the actual passage in the Qur'an, and noting that specific prohibition against lying is not clear or even addressed in the tafsir examples that you provided, whether considered mainstream or not, it is a difficult assumption that the tafsir of Ibn Kathir and those who engage in Taqiyya as seemingly permitted directly by the words of the Qur'an, to be incorrect.

Regards.

Posted by: awake at February 11, 2008 4:03 PM

Mohamed,

Here's what you said on February 9 at 9:03PM regarding the claim in the main article, "Hamas: We're allowed to lie":

Answering the Hamas guy quoted, if its accurate, is futile because the upper management of Hamas wouldn't back such non-sense. He's way over-reaching and if he's using 3:28 as his rationale, then he's a misguided fool.

That's in your comment here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019850.php#c507529

Then on February 11 at 12:18PM you wrote this:

I never made a statement that Hamas doesn't believe in deception in principle, so don't build up a straw man here.

That's in your comment here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019850.php#c508134

All right. If you didn't mean by your February 9 statement that the Hamas leadership rejected deception in principle, what did you mean?

All your talk about Hamas not deceiving Abbas is irrelevant, because aside from this article, the larger issue is their deceiving Israel, the EU, and the US.

Don't know where you lived but here in Dallas and everywhere I've seen Evangelicals, one sees them trying to grow their movement by promoting Christian inter-cooperation. If you ever come back to Dallas you can go check out the Christian Brothers Automotive Shop in my neighborhood and then tell me they don't exist.

I don't know. I'm not an evangelical, and I don't claim to know much about them. But even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't amount to what Qur'an 3:28 says, as interpreted by Ibn Kathir and (as we shall see) others about deceiving unbelievers. No warrant is given for that in any sect of Christianity.

Look as the resident expert on Jihad focused tafsir, I would have expected you to be aware of all the major tafsirs out there so I'm shocked that you focus so much on Ibn Kathir and his commentary on other simple people's opinions (heart hatred and whatever).

I've already explained this to you: I focus on him because he makes a clear statement about religious deception. I've asked you to come up with some tafasir that reject religious deception on principle, which question comes from the fact that you initially came into this thread complaining that I was unfairly generalizing from the Hamas statement (which, incidentally, wasn't true either). That's all. And instead of a straight answer from you, we get paragraphs and paragraphs of detours.

Though it isn't my responsibility, here's two major and mainstream tafsirs of the 3:28 verse you keep misinterpreting:

No, Ibn Kathir keeps misinterpreting -- unless you can demonstrate that I've said anything beyond what he says. Can you?

Why do you wish to pretend that I'm originating this material, instead of acknowledging that it exists in Islamic texts, and dealing with it accordingly?

1. Tafsir al-Jalalayn from about five centuries ago is well respected globally by scholars and laymen alike for its simplicity to understand when reading it. Here's the english translation of the tafsir on 3:28: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=28&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0 "Let not the believers take the disbelievers as patrons, rather than, that is, instead of, the believers — for whoever does that, that is, [whoever] takes them as patrons, does not belong to, the religion of, God in anyway — unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts: this was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it. God warns you, He instills fear in you, of His Self, [warning] that He may be wrathful with you if you take them as patrons; and to God is the journey’s end, the return, and He will requite you."

Thanks for the lesson. You seem to want to pretend that I never heard of the two Jalals -- or, before you accuse me of setting up a straw man, at least that is the impression I get from this statement from you, and your explanation of what the Tafsir al-Jalalayn is, above: "Look as the resident expert on Jihad focused tafsir, I would have expected you to be aware of all the major tafsirs out there..."

While it is common for Muslim spokesmen to accuse me of ignorance, this assertion always seems to founder on the facts. In reality, I quoted this exact passage from the Tafsir al-Jalalayn here at JW on May 24, 2007. Here is the URL:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016608.php

Also, I've quoted the Tafsir al-Jalalayn copiously in my Blogging the Qur'an series, which you can find here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

But to the point: I was asking you for tafasir that contradicted Ibn Kathir. Instead, you give me the two Jalals, who confirm Ibn Kathir and uphold the principle of religious deception: "you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts."

All right, so let's try the second one. You quote at length from the Tafsir Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi, but your quote only deals with the part bout not taking unbelievers as friends in preference to believers, and doesn't talk about religious deception at all.

So we still don't have a tafsir that contradicts Ibn Kathir, whom you reject, right?

As you can see from above, the verse you keep quoting is from a specific instance and Jalalayn's tafsir is very straight forward to understand for the modern man and is rational.

Please point to anywhere in the Tafsir al-Jalalayn on 3:28 where it says anything about restricting this to a specific instance. They seem to be saying that anytime you're in this situation, you can act this way. No?

You're not wrong that Ibn Kathir is still popular, but where I think your take's different then a normal Muslim is that you give it too much weight. If an Imam was to stand up and issue a fatwa only based on Ibn Kathir or any single scholar's commentary then it'd be seen as a weak fatwa and not even considered by mainstream authorities. He'd need to conduct a comprehensive study of the entire Quran, Sunnah and all the major tafsirs of the Quran and the ahadieth before his fatwa could be considered as properly researched for consideration. Would we take a Law Professor's commentary on the Constitution from centuries ago blindly now, or is there a rigorous academic review process before any Brief's written?

Fine. That's why I asked you for material contradicting Ibn Kathir. I'm still waiting.

Perhaps you can point to something specific that "interpretation by scholars" is forbidden today on?

Sure. The rulings of Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i, and Maliki fuqaha about jihad against unbelievers and their subjugation. Who is reopening the discussion of such issues, and in what forum, and with what authority?

I know that some try to paint Hudaybiah as a temporary pact until Muslims are strong enough to take over, but that's historical revisionism because there is no proof and even counter-proof like the Hadith I quoted above exist that Prophet Muhammad was going to break the treaty himself.

Then why does the Shafi'i school -- and others -- teach this? Why has the teaching establishment of Islam succumbed almost universally to this "historical revisionism"?

Here is Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, no "Islamophobe" he, in War and Peace in the Law of Islam: "The Hudaybiya treaty established the precedent that Muslim authorities might come to terms with polytheists, provided it was only for a temporary period....they all agree that a temporary peace with the enemy is not inconsistent with Islam's interests." Where did Khadduri get this idea? Was he a historical revisionist?

Now I'm aware of media reports that Arafat said that the Oslo Accords were his Hudaybiah in Arabic though I never heard it, but if its true then my response would be that the man is better off being straight forward. Arafat is also a secular and not a religious authority by any means.

Sure. But he knew his audience would understand what he meant, and they seemed to, didn't they?

I would argue that their is a difference in the end goal of the Islamists and the Jihadists. Seeing their end goal as simply "Islamic Rule by Shariah" is superficial, because the devil's in the details. Like for example the structure of government, any checks and balances, independent judiciary or simply a centralized autocratic system calling itself Islamic. Other differences would include the role of religious scholars in the development of state legislation, is it advisory or guardian. And one could go down the list, so after examining it all one finds that human liberty simply can't exist in one at all and is promotable though the other though using a different methodology then the liberal west is familiar with.

Sorry. If I am to be subjugated, with a boot on the face, I am not interested in which brand of boot.

You keep on saying that Ibn Kathir assumes a non-Muslim "waliee amr" and that's not correct. Ibn Kathir's interpretation assumes non-Muslim "awliaa" not a non-Muslim "waliee amr". I would refer you to my last post where I said that one can have multiple "awliaa", but ultimately has one "waliee amr" or "Amir" if your familiar with that term. Check out the famous Asbab al-Nuzul tafsir I pasted above, it narrates for you the specific instance this verse was revealed for. In that instance the 500 Jewish military allies of Ubadah ibn al-Samit would be his "awliaa" not his "waliee amr". His "waliee amr" would be Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

This is just hairsplitting. What is clear from Ibn Kathir is that he is talking about deceiving unbelievers, not fellow Muslims.

Now is UBL trying to usurp authority not his, of course he is and that's their Achilles heel not a philosophical/theological discussion on deception, Jihad or what have you. For example in UBL's last video much of the media punditry were talking about his beard being dyed. They focused on frivilious observations like the guy looks younger. The reality is that the classical era scholars had said that dying your beard is not allowed unless for "Amir el-Moomineen" or "Walie Amr" of the Muslims. UBL was never granted that title, though he indirectly tries to usurp it via political arguments that as amir of Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda itself being the "vanguard defending Islam". Its actions like this where these political activists (ex. UBL) over-reach and are slapped down by Salafi scholars like Shk. Sulayman Odah and others.

Actually, Qaradawi and others say that black dye is allowed only for jihad, but is not restricted to the Amir el-Moomineen, and in any case, Osama has never claimed to be the Amir el-Moomineen. In fact, he engineered the proclamation of Mullah Omar as Amir el-Moomineen in Kandahar in 1996.

Concerning Rod, there's nothing contemptible in what I say about the guy. He's a bigot, simple as that.

To be perfectly candid with you, I'm tired of this name-calling. I get it all the time, and I see how it's effective and why you and your friends do it, but it does nothing to counter the substance of the arguments I make or Rod makes. Without answering our arguments, it's just empty character assassination. And people of good will can see that. It shows you to be weak. And people are waking up to that.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Right on Robert!

Im glad you dont let their name calling get to you. Its a nasty little tactic on their part

Also regarding the quote: "Don't know where you lived but here in Dallas and everywhere I've seen Evangelicals, one sees them trying to grow their movement by promoting Christian inter-cooperation"--

I'm orthodox myself but I know several evangelicals -and trust me I mean hardcore evangelicals--they're sense of intercorperation is not like muslims sense at all. The "worst" thing an evangelical will do is give you a pamplet on Jesus --what is the worst thing a muslim will do --a hardcore believer?

And hardcore muslim believers have thousands of training camps to train jihadists (and a apparently a few secret ones in north america too) --that is what their intercooperation leads to. Evangelicals intercooperation leads to better service ("treat others as you want them to treat you" and "if at all possible be at peace with ALL men" (ie christians and non christians),
and that goes for hardcore orthodox, copts and roman catholics too!

on the other hand the prescriptive commands of the muslim bible says to KILL and not help unbelivers.

Why the big difference?
It has to do with the founders of each of these two religions. An example will make it clear to people out there who think "all religions are the same y'know".

from:
http://www.kafirnation.com/myth2.htm

The Jews and Christians were considered evil people because they rejected mohamed as a prophet of god as they knew of the true God and it was rather obvious that he wasn't a prophet sent from Him.

Jesus is the perfect example of love and tolerance

John 8:7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Muhammed was the perfect opposite:

"The Prophet (Muhammad) said: 'Do not stone the adulteress who is pregnant until she has had her child.' After the birth she was put into a ditch up to her chest and the Prophet commanded them to stone her. Khalid came forward with a stone, which he threw at her head, and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and he cursed her. The gentle Prophet prayed over her and she was buried."
(Hadith No. Muslim 682)

One would think that in common parlance that to respect someone as a prophet would seek guidance in his teaching.

---
Therefore muslims who want to follow Muhammed MUST stone the adultress and kill the in the name of jihad for Allah (as good muslims do).

JESUS SHOWED MERCY
MUHAMMED SHOWED HATE

----------

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at February 13, 2008 10:52 AM

I hope you allow the above comments of mine to be posted as I am still unofficially banned on dhimmi watch apparently (cant seem to get any comment posted for the last month even though the message I get implies Im not banned1)

I love the work you do Robert Spencer please keep up the great work friend!

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at February 13, 2008 10:56 AM

nope scratch that apparently I am banned on dhummwatch! ah well.

PS the scripture quotes used in the above post are "treat others as you want them to treat you"
(Matthew 7:12)

and "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. " (Hbr 12:14)

now if only islam had prescriptive commands like that! But they dont plus from what I have learned on here --later koranic verses cancel out the earlier seemingly peaceful "there is no compulsion in religion" verse in the koran. how convenient for the jihadists who want us either all dead or converted to their dark death cult.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at February 13, 2008 11:07 AM

enlightener

Both the Old and New Testaments clearly forbids lying to save ones life, it’s a major point in scripture, see Daniel 3 and Matthew 10.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 13, 2008 11:55 AM

The fifth columnists posting above, enlightener and Moe, are frauds and liars of the worst sort (oh, and let's not forget Naseem, the house troll). What appears to get their goat most is that, little by little, there is an awakening in the West. They find this disturbing and counterproductive to their ultimate aims. As well they should.

Posted by: omvi at February 13, 2008 1:46 PM

In case this is useful, here is a 2004 WorldNetDaily article with some mention of mohamed elibiary, the weasel posting as "enlightener", above:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41939

"U.S. Muslim event hails Khomeini
Mainstream figures speak at 'tribute to the great Islamic visionary'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 15, 2004
1:00 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

A Texas Muslim organization held a special event honoring the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, advertised as a "tribute to the great Islamic visionary."...

Posted by: del at February 13, 2008 2:09 PM