| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Al-Qaeda's Azzam Al-Amriki, however, loved it*
Al-Arabiya discovers a sixteen-month-old promotion for my book The Truth About Muhammad, and the spittle starts flying.
As for the headline of their piece, I challenge anyone at Al-Arabiya, or anyone anywhere, to substantiate a single lie or hateful statement within the book.
"US magazine distributes free anti-Prophet book: Book is said to contain lies and hate," from Al-Arabiya (thanks to all who sent this in):
A right-wing American weekly magazine will distribute free copies of a book that insults Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and associates Islam with terrorism, Washington-based news agency America in Arabic reported.
"Right-wing"! Boo!
The neo-conservative, Republican-oriented Human Events magazine will distribute Robert Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion (2006), America in Arabic said.
"Neo-conservative"! Boo! "Republican-oriented"! Boo!
Actually, as I noted above, this promotion has gone out many times over the last year and a half.
Actually, Human Events is a newspaper.
The book -- regularly priced at 30 dollars -- is released by Regnery, which has published a string of controversial neo-con books and is a division of Eagle Publishing, which owns Human Events.
Actually it's $27.95, unless it has gone up without my knowledge.
"Controversial neo-con books"! Boo!
Well-known British writer Karen Armstrong, author of Muhammad: A Prophet of Our Time, has said that the book is "written in hatred," contains "basic and bad mistakes of fact" and that the author "deliberately manipulates the evidence".
Actually, it was Karen Armstrong (who cannot, as far as I know, read souls and thus has no idea whether or not I wrote the book in "hatred") who committed "basic and bad mistakes of fact" and perhaps "deliberately manipulate[d] the evidence" in her truth-free review of my book, as I demonstrated here.
The magazine says Spencer unravels facts not known to historians.
No, it doesn't.
The book claims that Muhammad said terrorism made him victorious and that he used to tempt people with paradise so they would crush his enemies.
Yeah, I made all that up, and cast it into the canonical hadith by means of my Zionist black arts.
"I have been made victorious with terror" -- so says Muhammad not according to me, but according to Bukhari (Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 220). Sahih Bukhari is the hadith collection, that is, the collection of traditions of Muhammad, that Muslims consider most reliable.
And what about that bit about Paradise? Here's another ahadith: "On the day of the battle of Uhud, a man came to the Prophet and said, 'Can you tell me where I will be if I should get martyred?' The Prophet replied, 'In Paradise.' The man threw away some dates he was carrying in his hand, and fought till he was martyred" (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 377).
Yes, more of Spencer's lies!
The author also accuses Muhammad of treason, breaching the Treaty of Hudaybiya with the Meccan tribe of Quraish, and instigating Muslims to kill Jews.
According to Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, the Treaty of Hudaybiya contained this provision: "If anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian he will return him to them; and if anyone of those with Muhammad comes to Quraysh they will not return him to him."
That is, those fleeing the Quraysh and seeking refuge with the Muslims would be returned to the Quraysh, while those fleeing the Muslims and seeking refuge with the Quraysh would not be returned to the Muslims.
But soon thereafter a woman of the Quraysh, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims in Medina; her two brothers came to Muhammad, asking that they be returned “in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiya.” But Muhammad refused: Allah forbade it. He gave Muhammad a new revelation: “O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them: Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers” (Qur’an 60:10).
In refusing to send Umm Kulthum back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the treaty. Although Muslim apologists have claimed throughout history that the Quraysh broke it first, this incident came before all those by the Quraysh that Muslims point to as treaty violations. Islamic apologist Yahiya Emerick, in his own biography of Muhammad, essentially admits this, and asserts that Muhammad based his case on a bit of legal hair-splitting: the treaty stipulated that the Muslims would return to the Quraysh any man who came to them, not any woman. But even if that is true, Muhammad soon – as Emerick acknowledges – began to accept men from the Quraysh as well, thus definitively breaking the treaty. See Yahiya Emerick, The Life and Work of Muhammad, Alpha Books, 2002, pp. 230-240.
So I suppose Emerick's book also, in acknowledging all this, also contains "lies" and "hate"?
And as for the bit about killing Jews, both of the earliest biographers of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa'd, both zealous Muslims, record his telling his followers at a certain point: “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.”
Spencer, the director of the Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch websites, also claims that the prophet encouraged Muslim men to take women captive to control them.
Yes, it is I who wrote into the Qur'an the permission for Muslim men to have sexual relations with women "whom your right hands possess" (4:24).
Ultra conservative attorney Ann Coulter, who writes a column in the magazine, is taking part in the campaign to promote the book.
"Ultra conservative"! Boo! Ann Coulter! Boo!
The rest of the Al-Arabiya piece goes on to smear Coulter, and me by association. But the troubling aspect of all this for the folks at Al-Arabiya, as I show by the citations above, is that everything I say in the book is true, and it is they who are either lying or ignorant about what the earliest Islamic texts say about Muhammad.
* Yes, folks, it's a Photoshop job.
Posted by Robert at March 17, 2008 11:22 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
What about those stories (rumors?) that the esteemed Herr Gadahn was dead, dead, dead?
Posted by: Pelayo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 17, 2008 11:32 AM
I am annoyed that I missed the free offer. I paid for my copy (and read it too). Money well enough spent but I would have liked it even more for free.
Posted by: Jerry M at March 17, 2008 11:39 AM
Pelayo:
Just rumors. Nothing substantiated thus far.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 17, 2008 11:42 AM
Robert,
I too paid for my book? Can I retroactively get a refund? :)
Btw, it is an honest book! Any muslim should not be offended. After all, the hadith, the koran, etc. were directly quoted from it.
Posted by: Infidel#1 at March 17, 2008 12:13 PM
Great book. Lests see Armstrong refute it point by point.
Like I said graet book. It needs to be made into a movie.
Posted by: Ruebacca at March 17, 2008 12:17 PM
Sixteen months and they're only learning about it now? What is this world coming to?
Regnery's promotions department fell down on the job. You need to get on them.
at March 17, 2008 12:23 PM
I bought the book to support the cause.
OT-
More attacks, but they are not hate crimes because they aren't muslims being attacked, just doing the attacking. Where is the Defender of the Faith?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3564521.ece
OT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/16/nrowan316.xml
A survey of London clergy by National Churchwatch, which provides personal safety advice, found that nearly half said they had been attacked in the previous 12 months. The organisation suggested that vicars should consider taking off their dog collars when they are on their own.
at March 17, 2008 12:34 PM
I read the book. I did not find lies or hatred. Only facts.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at March 17, 2008 12:37 PM
"A survey of London clergy by National Churchwatch, which provides personal safety advice, found that nearly half said they had been attacked in the previous 12 months. The organisation suggested that vicars should consider taking off their dog collars when they are on their own."
No, they should keep that collar. It is up to the state to protect the citizens.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at March 17, 2008 12:38 PM
Boo!!, Robert (yucky-yucky-you)
To confront them with their own history and Theology, (again I say) Boo!! to you!!
Posted by: Occupant at March 17, 2008 12:40 PM
FreeSpeech, I can only speak as a US citizen, but several lawsuits have been decided in favor of the state when protection is concerned. The police has a duty to society in general not to any individual. When the police do not respond in a timely manner to an emergency call; that's just tough.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 17, 2008 12:48 PM
In by best brogue:
"Aye, Robert. We luv ye and all yer fine boooks! I was so moved as to freshen me edges at the best smithy in all o' Erin."
Posted by: HotSpur at March 17, 2008 12:53 PM
"....everything I say in the book is true, and it is they who are either lying or ignorant about what the earliest Islamic texts say about Muhammad"....from headline.
At this stage of the game, I am leaning towards lying, because the Truth about Muhammad has been out there for quite some time - and they can hardly claim ignorance any more - especially those who have read your book.
at March 17, 2008 12:59 PM
It's shocking that al-Arabiya are allowing
both sides of the debate in the comments to
the link that Spencer provided.
at March 17, 2008 1:05 PM
I read the book. Found it informative. Then I read the sources. Found that Robert is being mild on Islam, the original is worse. Take the Battle of Mutah, for one - pure death cult.
Oh. Wouldn't a more appropriate headline run:
Al-Arabiya denounces The Truth About Muhammad
On second thought, perhaps not...
Posted by: Henrik at March 17, 2008 1:13 PM
Posted by: silent_rage at March 17, 2008 1:05 PM
We shall see about that. They've been on comment number 20 for awhile now.
Posted by: awake at March 17, 2008 1:13 PM
OT-
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11777&size=AFirst Islamic School to Open in Korea.
Many Koreans have distorted information about Islam, since many years ago some Muslims did not behave well, forcibly converting some of the natives".
Therefore, Kim adds, "the main goal is that of correcting a distorted view of our religion. School is not only for children: for us, it will be a mission".
They didn't behave well and forcibly converted natives. Well, that's a surprise...
at March 17, 2008 1:15 PM
May I suggest that when using the prophets name it be followed appropriately at all times with the initials "bboh" (Bearded man with Bomb On Head)
Can four simple letters become hate speach?
Lets push the envelope and see.
Posted by: inisroja at March 17, 2008 1:20 PM
Actually it's $27.95, unless it has gone up without my knowledge.From the Amazon link you have above, it seems to have gone down - to $18.45. For those who aren't fussy about second-hand books or are willing to deal with scalpers, they could get it for as low as $12.00.
For the record, I bought mine when it was first out, along with PIG and the DVD 'Islam: What the West needs to know'. The latter is now available on Google video.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 17, 2008 1:30 PM
While the vast majority of the American public is clueless, at least people are slowly becoming aware.
Practically no-one down here knows anything and I wish that I could do more to begin to create awareness of the danger.
If I could get some of these free copies, I could distribute them here in South America.
These people need to read someone other than just Noam Chomsky.
Posted by: patagonianplato at March 17, 2008 1:32 PM
C'mon, Robert! You know that EVERYTHING an infidel says is a lie, and EVERYTHING a Muslim says is the truth, no matter how outrageous!
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 17, 2008 2:20 PM
From the looks of that picture, I'll bet Gadhan studies your book so that he can learn about Mohammed!
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 17, 2008 2:26 PM
To finish the photoshop, someone put a "fatty" in his fingers.....
Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 17, 2008 2:53 PM
I'm going to have to subscribe to Human Events!
Posted by: alexon at March 17, 2008 2:55 PM
Wait, it says that The Truth About Muhammad is your newest book... what about Religion of Peace? (which I own)
-Peter
Posted by: Peter Nielson at March 17, 2008 3:06 PM
I took the book from a library. Boo! ;)
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at March 17, 2008 3:07 PM
They are actually getting our own school texts changed with their interpretations. Yes, Stalin would love them - or would he?! They follow along his line of reasoning though - repeat a lie often enough and it becomes a truth.
Yep, and our lefties help them along.
I would suspect that they will try to get this book censored as they did 'The Life and Religion of mohammed'. Thank God it is still available on some websites though.
Posted by: R_not at March 17, 2008 3:13 PM
Abraham Lincoln said no nation can exist half slave and half free.
Neither can a nation be sustained if it allows conditions that result in
mass emigration, while importing huge numbers of foreigners who come
from backgrounds that do not practice assimilation or tolerance of other beliefs.
http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=1442
So today it’s take off you ‘dog collar”
Tomorrow it will be take down the cross off your churches,
Next stop ringing your church bell
Then cast your eyes down "dhimmi"
Oh no , no , that can't happen...it never happened any time before in the history of Islam, not ever!
Stop me, please, I'm being "anti-Prophet" filled with lies and hate!
at March 17, 2008 3:31 PM
Mohammud(bboh) - I lyke the sound of it!
Posted by: HotSpur at March 17, 2008 3:35 PM
Yes, the photo of phat boy is photo-shoppable. Clearly, a Twinkie could be inserted into his left hand.
Posted by: HotSpur at March 17, 2008 3:37 PM
Notice "Daily Kos" on the computer screen....heh heh heh.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/16/22303/4276/789/478220
They are insane, and pals of the enemy.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 17, 2008 3:45 PM
update: 4 new comments through (on alarabiya), 1 possibly satyrical, 1 very much islamic, 2 questioning the islamists....
-Peter
Posted by: Peter Nielson at March 17, 2008 4:02 PM
"US magazine distributes free anti-Prophet book: Book is said to contain lies and hate," from Al-Arabiya (thanks to all who sent this in)
The book that contains the most lies and hate is called the kkkoran. End of discussion.
at March 17, 2008 4:38 PM
Well-known British writer Karen Armstrong, author of Muhammad: A Prophet of Our Time, has said that the book is "written in hatred," contains "basic and bad mistakes of fact" and that the author "deliberately manipulates the evidence".
The magazine says Spencer unravels facts not known to historians.
The book claims that Muhammad said terrorism made him victorious and that he used to tempt people with paradise so they would crush his enemies.
Is this not in the hadiths?
Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"
at March 17, 2008 5:12 PM
Yeah, but you have it in Koran also, and more to the point:
[The Koran says]: 'Remember thy Lord inspired the angels [with the message]: I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers, [and] I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. You cut off their heads and smite all their fingers off them [Koran 8:12]'...
at March 17, 2008 5:41 PM
Robert Spencer said:
...the treaty stipulated that the Muslims would return to the Quraysh any man who came to them, not any woman. But even if that is true, Muhammad soon – as Emerick acknowledges – began to accept men from the Quraysh as well, thus definitively breaking the treaty.
A question, Robert: When Muhammad began to accept Quraysh men seeking refuge from the Quraysh, did that breach of the Hudaybiya Treaty precede all the Quraysh's Hudaybiya Treaty violations alleged by the apologists for Islam?
Posted by: traeh at March 17, 2008 5:55 PM
To finish the photoshop, someone put a "fatty" in his fingers.....
Posted by: interestinconundrum
He doesn't need a reefer to get high - he's already stoned on Islam.
Posted by: champ at March 17, 2008 6:09 PM
Notice how the islamo-nazis have learned to use leftist words:
"neo-con", "conservative", "right wing".
at March 17, 2008 6:28 PM
Why are muslims ashamed of their religion? After all, it's supposed to be perfect.
Posted by: Silvester at March 17, 2008 7:14 PM
Judging from the photo, someone should let Adam Shazzam know that he dropped the joint, and his robe is about to catch fire.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 17, 2008 7:54 PM
Robert,
A strong case can be made that the denials of any parts of the traditions you cite in your book (I've read it)by any Muslim create conditions for the deniers having blasphemed and apostasized. You've really got these people in a bind, and in any fair forum they lose this argument every time.
Karen Armstrong is contemptible. She is under no obligation to practice taqiyya and kitman, and so we charge her with high treason and collaboration with the enemy.
at March 17, 2008 10:02 PM
"Practically no-one down here knows anything and I wish that I could do more to begin to create awareness of the danger.
If I could get some of these free copies, I could distribute them here in South America"
Posted by: patagonianplato
Patagonian,
Send me an email and I will send you copies of two leaflets you can pass out, one on the Qur’an and one on the life of Muhammad. The one on Muhammad was inspired by Roberts book and, as is the book, taken exclusively from Hadith, Sirat, and Qur’an.
at March 17, 2008 11:24 PM
"did that breach of the Hudaybiya Treaty precede all the Quraysh's Hudaybiya Treaty violations"
I think the Sirat, which is authored by Muslims, lists at least 17 violations done by the Muslim side first, without any from the opponents.
Hudaybiya was quoted by Yasser Arafat (see Relentless from HonestReporting) as a divine justification for not honoring the Oslo Accords.
This stuff is still a curse upon us!
Posted by: Henrik at March 18, 2008 12:49 AM
I recently engaged in debate with thesaracen on this thread:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020252.php
And he wrote something that really resonated with me: "I will never accept the Prophet (pbuh) was anything other than a man of superb character and morals."
It reminded me of my Mormon upbringing, and my subsequent, painful separation from same.
See, growing up we were told about the wide-eyed, innocent boy who prayed to God, and was visited by God and Jesus, and told that no religion on earth was the correct one, but that he would be the one to present the correct one to the world.
This boy was Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism (who thought of himself as a latter-day Muhammad, and married several women) and we learned how he received golden plates from God, translated them, and that was the Book of Mormon, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ."
What we didn't learn, but that I found out later, was that Joseph Smith was accused of de-frauding people who paid him to divine where gold was, and he used the same technique he used to translate the Book of Mormon; namely, by looking in his hat at some magic crystals!
The point I'm getting at, is that it is very difficult, after growing up in a religion, and being told all your life about how good, virtuous, and holy the founders were; it's very difficult to accept anything that shows them to be otherwise.
There are various reactions; some deny the evidence of badness outright, some (like myself) eventually accept it, have a crisis of faith, and leave the religion (of course, there is no death penalty for apostacy from Mormonism, so that made my decision much easier than it would be for a Muslim).
Some people manage to integrate the evidence; justifying it somehow (it wasn't really that bad, or that was in a different time, or he may have been a creep, but his message is still good, etc.)
But, it really seems unique to Muslims, to desire to kill the person who brings the bad news!
In the end, I do sympathize with people like thesaracen; young Muslims struggling with their faith, and confronting a lot of evidence that maybe, just maybe, their "perfect man" wasn't all that perfect.
Ideally, I wish they could simply leave without being marked for death because of it. How many people are stuck in an ideology they no longer believe in because they simply don't wanna die?
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 18, 2008 1:29 AM
A shame that Muslims have to learn the facts about their own religion and its core documents from infidel dogs.
Keep digging up those bones in the Koran and Hadiths, Mr. Spencer!
Apparently Mohammedans aren't getting the straight info from their own imams.
Imam Roobart Sbunsar to the rescue!
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 18, 2008 2:12 AM
Mo Foe
I was raised Catholic and back in those days(not now) I was told we are the "true church", never go into a church that is not Catholic.
All other religions were hell bound.
The Jews killed Jesus and are now rejected by God. I can go on and on.
The core beliefs were good, the people were good, most anyway.
I was free to question, and even though they changed over time, I left the church.
But with Islam, children go with what we are told, never to question, grow up, keep the lie.
I can see in an Islamic country, they have no say, nothing to compare with,
But here in the USA? I don't get it.
at March 18, 2008 2:55 AM
Wow, Al-Arabiya really outdid themselves with those labels...neo-con, far right, ultra conservative....sounded like the NYTimes..
Darth Spencer strikes again !
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 18, 2008 10:07 AM
Mo Foe - A muslim on JW explained that Mohammad did everything that he did to spread islam, so it was all good no matter what. Even killing Safiya's whole family was good for her because it brought her to islam against her will, but it still brought her into the fold. Which saves her in the afterlife. So it is all good. No matter what.
Anything that advances islam is good. Even slaughter. You must do things that you don't want to do for the cause of islam's spread around the world. Because in the end islam must dominate.
That is how he explained it.
Posted by: Borg at March 18, 2008 10:25 AM
To Al-Arabya -
"Just the facts, ma'am.
-Sgt. Joe Friday
at March 18, 2008 10:29 AM
Borg,
That's interesting; it's like the old theological question about whether good exists separate from God; ie, is God following morality, or is it moral, because God did it?
I think I know what a pious Muslim would say!
Joe Schmoe USA,
I know that virtually every religion thinks it has a monopoly on the truth, and that non-believers will suffer in the afterlife, but it seems that only Islam wants to speed you there NOW!
Posted by: Mo Foe at March 18, 2008 12:57 PM
Mo Foe - there is no patience in Islam.
Actually, I think that this demonstrates a lack of faith on the part of jihadists. Apparently, they don't really believe that Allah will condemn the infidels to hell. So, the jihadists try to make unbeliever's life a living hell on earth. Oh, ye of little faith!
Posted by: tanstaafl at March 18, 2008 2:03 PM
Borg, finally a muslim, proberly one of these so called peaceful moderate muslim , admits to the fact that islam is a religion of hate and death. that it's all about violent jihad to shove islam down people's throats. I can't help but to admire this muslim for admitting this very basic fact about islam. sad fact is that most non muslims refuse to hear this. They, like those 3 monkees, will shut their ears, close their mouth and refuse to see the naked violent truth about islam.
Posted by: desidude at March 18, 2008 6:53 PM
See - when someone gets their hands on the Truth their eyes light up.
Posted by: champ at March 18, 2008 10:07 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)