| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Disgraced: Yes, I admit it, I've met Jimmy Carter
Deborah Weiss, columnist, attorney, and senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy, has kindly alerted me to an eleven-part -- eleven! -- series written by Omer Subhani, "Exposing Robert Spencer." Omer Subhani is the Communications Director for CAIR-South Florida, and as one might expect coming from a representative of that inveterately dishonest and mudslinging organization, his "exposé" is less a refutation than a shallow exercise in character assassination, ad hominem attacks, and leaps of illogic. Still, since I have often pointed out that no one has ever shown my work to be inaccurate in any way, it seems only sporting for me to take up Subhani's claim to do so, just for the record, and to show how hollow it is.
As it happens I've already dealt with one of the parts of his series, here, before I knew it was part of a series, but now I'll do the rest -- not all at once, so as not to drown the site in Subhani's bluster and guff, but as an occasional series of my own here. So -- on to Part I, which, not surprisingly, starts by diving right into the ad hominems:
There's scholarship and then there's Dershowitz scholarship. Dershowitz scholarship is shoddy at best, maliciously devious at its worse.
Dershowitz, of course, has nothing to do with this at all, but Subhani just couldn't resist the dig, which I think considering the source is a fine advertisement for Dershowitz's work.
Robert Spencer, the head of Jihad Watch, falls under the latter category. He follows in the footsteps of other "anti-terrorism experts" like the disgraced Steve Emerson.
Here's what Subhani means by "disgraced."
Spencer, whose knowledge of the Qur'an extends to translations by Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, and Muhammad Asad, doesn't seem to rely on the more authoritative exegesis of Qurtubi, ibn al-Arabi, or Imam al-Tabari, to name a few. I guess he didn't learn that at UNC when he was studying the nature of Jesus Christ.
I trust Subhani has fired off a strongly worded letter to the USC Muslim Students Association, whose knowledge of the Qur'an apparently extends to translations by Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, and M. H. Shakir. I link to that site in my Blogging the Qur'an series because it is a handy reference and because Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir (as well as Asad) were all Muslims -- but Subhani is just trying to score cheap points by pretending that those are all I know of the Qur'an. See here, for example, for me citing translations not just by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Asad, but also by Nooruddin, Dawood, Fakhry, Daryabadi, Hilali and Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali, Muhammad Ali, Arberry, Palmer, Rodwell, and Sale. And here and here I discuss the meanings of Qur'anic passages in (gasp!) Arabic.
But all that, of course, would get in the way of Subhani's caricature Spencer, so he tells you I only know those three translations, and then says that I don't rely on the exegesis of Qurtubi, ibn al-Arabi, or al-Tabari. This is odd, because he was talking about translators, but then shifts the goalposts to talk about commentators. Unfortunately for Subhani, I have cited numerous Islamic exegetes of the Qur'an in my Blogging the Qur'an series and elsewhere, including those he claims I don't cite: see, for example, here, here and here.
I guess Subhani didn't learn the value of accurate reporting from his bosses among the unindicted co-conspirators in a jihad terror funding case.
In any case, Spencer has personally studied Islam and has focused much of his attention on issues focused upon the treatment of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule as well as on what he terms the "jihad ideology" - radical Islam, extremism, etc.
"Islam is an ideology." -- Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, July 31, 2007.
Spencer declares that jihadists have a sounder theological framework based upon classical Islamic sources. He also asserts that Christians and Jews were treated as second class citizens during the period of classical Islam. All of this is easily refutable.
Where's the beef?
Spencer likes to portray himself as a calm, smooth intellectual who has really dug deep into classical Islamic scholarship to discover and expose the real dark nature of Islam.
I really like to portray myself as a a wealthy industrialist, philanthropist, and man-about-town who, after witnessing the murder of my parents, donned a bat-themed costume in order to fight a series of likewise outlandishly costumed criminals.
All he really does in essence is demonstrate his lack of qualifications for such an endeavor.
Yeah, I don't even know where to go to get a degree in Exposing the Real Dark Nature of Islam.
For the purposes of this blog I will simply show a few of Spencer's scholarly blunders. Later on I'll show more. I'll probably never get around to his books because I'm not about to waste money on garbage so I'll just wait until I get back into school and see if my library carries his garbage.The first one is about an article he wrote about Surah al-Tawba (Chapter 29). In this article (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/09/blogging-the-qur%E2%80%99an-sura-9-%E2%80%9Crepentance%E2%80%9D-verse-29-part-2/), Spencer cites a pact between "the Caliph Umar" whom Spencer says lived from "634 to 644" and a Christian community.
Yeah, Umar was the amazing ten-year-old caliph. What I actually wrote, as you can see if you look, was that Umar "ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644," not that he lived from 634 to 644. If you wonder why I'm being a bit flip with Subhani, this is why: he is either inexcusably careless in his reading or so outrageously dishonest and bent on defaming me that he simply lies about what I say. Since he gets it right below, I suspect it's just carelessness, but in any case it doesn't speak well for the accuracy of his analysis.
Based upon these dates, Spencer seems to be suggesting that the pact was between Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second khalifah) and a Christian community. He cites ibn Kathir as his source for this pact. The pact is harsh on the Christians, by today's standards.Now, as any historian should know, you don't just take something at face value. You must investigate whether your primary source is authentic or not by studying the secondary literature. Spencer apparently did not do that because all I had to do was Google "Pact of Umar" and lo and behold I got a nice article about the pact on Wikipedia (yes, I know, it's not exactly scholarly, but I don't have the resources as of now to do a more serious investigation).
You can say that again!
Whatever our opinions about Wikipedia, it does offer important information, especially in regards to this subject. So, firstly, Spencer says that it was the Caliph Umar who ruled from 634-644.
Subhani meets accuracy! That is what I said!
Accordingly, that is incorrect as Wikipedia cites a number of Western specialists on Islamic history stating that:
Subhani is an extraordinarily poor writer. He doesn't mean that it is incorrect that Umar ruled from 634 to 644, although that is the import of his words. He means that the Pact itself isn't historical, as he goes on to explain:
"Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. Academic historians believe that the Pact of Umar in the form it is known today was a product of later jurists who attributed it to the venerated caliph Umar I in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions. The striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes suggest that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs."So, it was not written by Umar ibn al-Khattab as Spencer erroneously suggests. Second, the document itself is under scrutiny by Western historians, something Spencer wholly misses.
Now: did I actually say the thing was historical? Nope -- in his carelessness Subhani probably missed the portion of the sentence I've put in italics here: "He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community."
Does Islamic tradition speak about the Pact of Umar? Well, it's in Ibn Kathir -- that's where I got it. I wasn't actually dealing with the question of whether or not it was a real seventh-century document. I was and am interested in the patent and manifest fact that it became the basis for Islamic law regarding dhimmis. Whether the law came first and then was read into a fictional pact Umar made, or whether there really was a Pact of Umar and the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) regarding dhimmis was influenced by it, simply doesn't concern me, except as a matter of historical interest. I am concerned with the institutionalized mistreatment of non-Muslims under Islamic law, and used Ibn Kathir's citing of the Pact of Umar to illustrate it. I could have used any number of other things, including Reliance of the Traveller, 'Umdat al-Salik, a manual of Islamic law that was certified by Al-Azhar in 1991 -- not 991 -- as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy. It is remarkably similar to the Pact of Umar in its regulations on how the dhimmis are to be treated. That in itself illustrates the constancy of these elements of Islamic law. They have not been reformed or rejected.
Instead, Umar ibn al-Khattab has his own authentic pact with the Christian community of Syria when the early Muslims conquered Jerusalem. It is called the Umarriya Covenant:"In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Beneficent. This is what the slave of Allah, Umar b.Al-Khattab, the Amir of the believers, has offered the people of Illyaa’ of security granting them Amaan (protection) for their selves, their money, their churches, their children, their lowly and their innocent, and the remainder of their people. Their churches are not to be taken, nor are they to be destroyed, nor are they to be degraded or belittled, neither are their crosses or their money, and they are not to be forced to change their religion, nor is any one of them to be harmed. No Jews are to live with them in Illyaa’ and it is required of the people of Illyaa’ to pay the Jizya, like the people of the cities. It is also required of them to remove the Romans from the land; and whoever amongst the people of Illyaa’ that wishes to depart with their selves and their money with the Romans, leaving their trading goods and children behind, then their selves, their trading goods and their children are secure until they reach their destination. Upon what is in this book is the word of Allah, the covenant of His Messenger, of the Khulafaa’ and of the believers if they (the people of Illyaa’) gave what was required of them of Jizya. The witnesses upon this were Khalid ibn Al-Walid, 'Amr ibn al-'As, Abdur Rahman bin Awf and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Written and passed on the 15th year (after Hijrah)."
None of this -- not a single element of it -- contradicts the elements of the Pact of Umar I cited. The Jews and Christians were allowed to live in peace, provided they accepted a subjugated, second-class status.
Spencer cites the wrong Umar. He quotes a potentially fabricated document and asserts that it speaks for all of "Islamic law." He then goes on to quote radical Islamic thinkers like Syed Qutb and Mawlana Mawdudi to reinforce his argument that Muslims/Islam want to subjugate Christians and humiliate them (gee, isn't that circular logic?). He quotes only ibn Kathir as his primary classical Islam scholar, likely because that's where he found the explanation of Surah al-Tawba and because he doesn't read Arabic.
I've already shown that Subhani either reads carelessly or has no concern for honest dealing, or both, but in fact -- go read the passage and see for yourself -- I also cite the early nineteenth century Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi (1802-1853), author of the noted commentary on the Qur’an Ruhul Ma’ani, and the Tafsir Anwar al-Bayan by the twentieth-century Indian Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri, as well as Muhammad Asad, who is as "moderate" as they come.
Quoting Qutb and Mawdudi is strange, indeed. If you wanted to show that Islam was truly radical then I would assume you would want to quote some great Islamic scholar from the classical period, such as Abu Hanifa or Malik - not modern Muslim activists like Qutb and Mawdudi who are well known for their hostility to non-Muslims, even some Muslims. That's like if I wanted to show why the Miami Dolphins are the greatest NFL franchise in history and I only interviewed Dan Marino and Don Shula.
Very well, Subhani. Here you go:
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Back to Subhani:
Spencer goes after "Islamic law" regularly stating that because there are books or Muslim scholars who wrote harsh things about Christians and Jews a thousand years ago or even last year then that means Islam is really hostile to Jews and Christians. He fails to recognize the difference between texts and known history. Has Spencer ever wondered what the condition of Muslims were under Christians? Essentially, that's not even a subject of study because Muslims couldn't dream of living anywhere in Europe or Russia before the Enlightenment. Jews had a terribly difficult time living under Christianity, but Muslims are rarely know to have ventured into Christian lands because of the likely fact that they would have been forced to convert or killed.
False. Christian antisemitism is a terrible fact, but take the period of the Crusades, when Jews in the Levant had a choice to live in Christian or Muslim areas. According to the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, even after the sack of Jerusalem and Crusaders' massacre of the Jews in 1099, Jews generally preferred to live in areas controlled by the Franks. They knew all too well that what was in store for them in Muslim lands was even worse.
What's more, the Spanish Muslim Ibn Jubayr (1145-1217), who traversed the Mediterranean on his way to Mecca in the early 1180s, found that even Muslims preferred living in Crusader lands. He lamented that near Tyre he passed a series of farms where "the inhabitants were all Muslims, but they live in comfort with the Franj [Franks, or Crusaders] -- may Allah preserve them from temptation! Their dwellings belong to them and all their property is unmolested....Now, doubt invests the heart of a great number of these men when they compare their lot to that of their brothers living in Muslim territory. Indeed, the latter suffer from the injustice of their coreligionists, while the Franj act with equity."
Christians on the other hand who lived under Islam's authority, though having to live as second class citizens, could still live and practice their faith, which was unheard of for minorities in the Christian world prior to the Enlightenment.Were Jews and Christians treated as second class citizens under Islamic rule? By today's standards of freedom and equality, of course. Anyone with an objective outlook will see that clearly. But what is Spencer comparing? Is he comparing the 13th century Muslim world with today's world? How is that a valid comparison? If you were going to make a proper comparison you would compare the status of minorities in Europe under Christian rule with the status of minorities under Islam. How does that pan out? It's not even a comparison. Spencer knows that full well, but he likes to make faulty comparisons so he can sell books.
Subhani is right: historical comparisons are pointless. The only reason why any of this matters is because Islamic supremacists want to revive the dhimma now. And what is Omer Subhani doing to stop them? Why, demonizing me, of course!
I will stop here. Spencer likes to focus on Surah al-Tawba quite a bit so I'll carry on refuting his shoddy scholarship tomorrow, if God wills.
Apparently God did not so will, for Subhani didn't return to his defamation campaign for nearly a month. I will get to his Part II sometime soon, when time permits, and I assure you that future demolitions of this pseudo-analyst will not take as long as this one has.
Posted by Robert at May 14, 2008 10:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Robert -
"Yeah, I don't even know where to go to get a degree in Exposing the Real Dark Nature of Islam."
Where else but at Ka-boom University (secret location somewhere in a cave near Pakistan/Afghanistan border)? The course goes by a little different name there.
"Concealing the Real Dark Nature of Islam" Prerequisites: Taqiyya 101, Lying to Leftists 201 and "What Translation of the Qur'an is that?" 301
Posted by: tanstaafl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 14, 2008 11:05 AM
He then goes on to quote radical Islamic thinkers like Syed Qutb and Mawlana Mawdudi to reinforce his argument that Muslims/Islam want to subjugate Christians and humiliate them (gee, isn't that circular logic?).
You could also have quoted the infamous verse 9:29 from any of the Koranic translations that Subhani prefers. You could also quote it in Arabic I suppose.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at May 14, 2008 11:08 AM
I am astonished to learn that a Communications Director for CAIR-South Florida has no other Islamic resource than Wikipedia.
Perhaps he could hit the House of Saud up for a library.
BTW, Robert, wasn't there a Hot Air piece done from your library? Maybe you could invite Omer to come out to the David Horowitz Freedom Center and let him use your books.
Posted by: AnneCrockett at May 14, 2008 11:09 AM
I'll probably never get around to his books because I'm not about to waste money on garbage so I'll just wait until I get back into school and see if my library carries his garbage.
To what address and to whose attention may I send those books, Omer?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 14, 2008 11:12 AM
Off-topic: The An attack on Islam by Robert Spencer petition has been expunged of all signatures supporting Robert.
On-topic: Where is Rosalyn's left hand?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 14, 2008 11:17 AM
Isn't Tabari considered weak?
Posted by: Borg at May 14, 2008 11:21 AM
Anne
Maybe Wikipedia was the best source of cut-&-paste, but even then, there are umpty number of Islamic websites that would contain the Quran and Sunnah that he'd need for his mission.
Why did Allah put more important things in front of Subhani? God alone knows
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 14, 2008 11:23 AM
Borg:
Only when it's convenient to do so!
But in fact, generally, yes.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 14, 2008 11:23 AM
Is the photo real or cut/paste?
And is that truly Our Hero, the young RS?
Posted by: darcy at May 14, 2008 11:31 AM
Darcy
The photo is real. It was taken in Plains, Georgia, in the summer of 1984, and yes, that is really me, and really Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 14, 2008 11:34 AM
"I really like to portray myself as a a wealthy industrialist, philanthropist, and man-about-town who, after witnessing the murder of my parents, donned a bat-themed costume in order to fight a series of likewise outlandishly costumed criminals."
Mr. Spencer, thank you for the belly-laugh of the day.
Posted by: Jonas Salk at May 14, 2008 11:41 AM
Mr. Spencer:
Omer Subhani's shallowness comes through, and those inclined to malign your work will be content to take Subhani at face value, while castigating you. On the other hand, such weak and ineffectual opposition only enhances your stature.
Oh, BTW, is that photo of you from your younger, carefree days, before the tragic murder of your parents at the hands of Dark Powers of Evil? Is that before you donned cape, mask, and alter ego and began your crusade against villainy in all its forms?
Posted by: John C at May 14, 2008 11:43 AM
There are, within the General Evisceration, some details that deserve to be held up for special inspection.
This is the part that struck me the most:
"What's more, the Spanish Muslim Ibn Jubayr (1145-1217), who traversed the Mediterranean on his way to Mecca in the early 1180s, found that even Muslims preferred living in Crusader lands. He lamented that near Tyre he passed a series of farms where "the inhabitants were all Muslims, but they live in comfort with the Franj [Franks, or Crusaders] -- may Allah preserve them from temptation! Their dwellings belong to them and all their property is unmolested....Now, doubt invests the heart of a great number of these men when they compare their lot to that of their brothers living in Muslim territory. Indeed, the latter suffer from the injustice of their coreligionists, while the Franj act with equity."
Does anyone doubt that Muslins today flock to non-Muslim lands because they are better run, they are safer, the lives of the citizens are more secure, the possibility of redress against authority greater, the access to the wonders of the modern world that are the product of a mental freedom, and an absence of inshallah-fatalism, that are the hallmarks of mind-forged-manacled Muslims, so that any Muslim in his right mind of course wishes to live in Great Britain, say, rather than in Pakistan, or in France rather than Algeria or Morocco, or in the Netherlands rather than in Morocco or Turkey (because Kemalism did not go far enough, and the remains of the pre-Kemalist Day, that is Islam, are all about, and indeed now being relentlessly revived), and so on. But these Muslim "refugees from Islam" do not recognize that what they find and like in the West is precisely owed to the fact of the West's non-Islamic history, and quite unlike previous refugees, such as those from the Nazis who worked to warn people about the Nazis, and refugees, from Russia or Eastern Europe or China, who worked to warn people in the West, where they found refuge, about the menace of Communism, about the threat from Soviet Union and Communist China, Muslims in the West come not to warn the West about Islam, but rather bring with them the very Islam that has caused their own countries to be so unpleasant or unlivable in the first place. They do not see this. They are "slaves to Allah" or rather slaves to Islam as a Total Belief-System, and while the morally and intellectually most advanced see this, and some of them become apostates, others are afraid, or tied down by filial piety, a desire to retain, as many feel they must, "cultural" or "family" ties, and do not wish to suffer the ostracism that they fear if they do indeed break openly with Islam.
Only the very most advanced, and the bravest, dare to see Islam -- its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, the very attitudes that they hear expressed openly in Muslim-only gatherings, where the hostility to Infidels is not hidden, and some of them hear this with horror, but many others hear and are prompted not to break with Islam, which often means breaking with their families, but choose to hide or disguise that anti-Infidel feeling that they know about, know all about, but decie to lie about in order to protect, out of embarrassment, out of fear that Muslims may lose their truly "protected status" in the lands of the Infidels (where so far they are allowed to essentially retain a loyalty to Islam, and therefore to the Shari'a and to a general worldview, that necessarily bespeaks permanent hostility to the Infidel nation-states, to the legal and political institutions of those nation-states, in which they now live and of which they have even been permitted, by those too ignorant to understand Islam, to obtain citizenship.
Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2008 11:49 AM
Subhani's blog popped up a couple of times last week as he tried to call Joe Kaufman out. He's looking for headlines to promote himself at a time when more and more people are calling for an investigation into CAIR. I wouldn't worry about him too much. He uses exceedingly immature arguments and it's difficult to read anything he says without laughing out loud.
Posted by: Connie at May 14, 2008 11:50 AM
Darcy
The photo is real. It was taken in Plains, Georgia, in the summer of 1984, and yes, that is really me, and really Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch at May 14, 2008 11:34 AM
Wow! Now that is historical! I guess Jimmy wasn't a "dhimmi" back in the pre-9/11 era.
P.S. You look very handsome, and the smile is wonderful.
Omer Subhani is, of course, ridiculous.
P.S. I have photos of me with Abbie Hoffman (!) and Hunter S. Thompson from a speaking event in 1989!
Posted by: darcy at May 14, 2008 11:55 AM
Darcy:
I guess Jimmy wasn't a "dhimmi" back in the pre-9/11 era.
Sure he was.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 14, 2008 11:58 AM
"Yeah, I don't even know where to go to get a degree in Exposing the Real Dark Nature of Islam."
and we all know what an "expert" robert spencer is on Islam :)
watch the rest of the LOSERS from MAD Watch come crawlin out
at May 14, 2008 12:06 PM
"so I'll carry on refuting his shoddy scholarship tomorrow, if my imaginary friend wills."
Guess not Omer dude, try praying to a golden calf next time - maybe your luck will improve.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at May 14, 2008 12:07 PM
So when, exactly, was Steven Emerson "disgraced"? And by whom?
Posted by: PMK at May 14, 2008 12:08 PM
"so I'll carry on refuting his shoddy scholarship tomorrow, if my imaginary friend wills."
Guess not Omer dude, try praying to a golden calf next time - maybe your luck will improve.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at May 14, 2008 12:07 PM
LOL, Quantum Infidel!
*
What's that post up above by "skouti" supposed to mean?
Posted by: darcy at May 14, 2008 12:23 PM
The first one is about an article he wrote about Surah al-Tawba (Chapter 29). In this article
Doesn't Subhari mean Chapter 9? Was that a mistake or obfuscation?
Posted by: PRCalDude at May 14, 2008 12:27 PM
I always appreciate Robert's good humor. I don't know how he puts up with this nonsense day in and day out.
Posted by: Mo at May 14, 2008 12:38 PM
I thought Muslim scholars didn't like al-Tabari because he said it was Isaac and not Ismael who was going to be sacrificed by Abraham
Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at May 14, 2008 12:50 PM
". I don't know how he puts up with this nonsense day in and day out."
He is a righteous dude.
at May 14, 2008 12:58 PM
So when, exactly, was Steven Emerson "disgraced"? And by whom? Posted by: PMK
He's had many detractors over the years. Here is an example of one.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1443
Read the article, written in 1999. From what you know now, who was right? Notice particularly the outcome of the Al-Arian, a particular hobby-horse of Suggs, with which Suggs is now "disgraced" himself.
Here is a "Sidebar" quote, which apparently the author must have felt was particularly damning:
"The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept. We don't want to accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world's great religions -- which has more than 1.4 billion adherents -- somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine." --Steven Emerson, Jewish Monthly (3/95)
Bigoted or prescient? You decide.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 14, 2008 1:01 PM
"Were Jews and Christians treated as second class citizens under Islamic rule? By today's standards of freedom and equality, of course. Anyone with an objective outlook will see that clearly. But what is Spencer comparing? Is he comparing the 13th century Muslim world with today's world? How is that a valid comparison?"
-- from Omar Subhani's text, quoted above
Of course the phrase "second class citizens" is anachronistic, and comes from the advanced Western world, and the idea of the Roman"cive" who bedomes "citoyen" (aux armes, citoyens) and the "citizen" -- instead of the subject.
But in Islam the word "citizen" rings false. Muslims are "slaves of Allah" and they are never citizens, but subjects -- subjected to the principles of Islam, which are in the end what control or are supposed to control even the despot who in Muslim societies, without any democratic tradition which depends on locating political legitimacy in the express will of the people (in Islam political legitimacy is the same as religious legitimacy, and depends on conformity to the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an, as glossed by the Sunnah). And if Muslims are hardly "citizens" in the Western sense, so the non-Muslims can not be called, I think, "second-class citizens." They are not really part of the Islamic polity at all. Geographically, they may inhabit the same area, but they are not part of Islamic society or the state, run of by and for Muslims. They have their place. They are not killed, as long as they know their place. And their place, historically, in all Muslim lands, was to exist -- at best in the case of Hindus and others who were not defined as ahl al-kitab or People of the Book as were Christians and Jews (note that Subhani stays away from Hindus, Buddhists, and others) -- as dhimmis, having to endure a permanent, Allah-sent existence, if they wished to avoid death or conversion, in which they could practice their religion, but had to conform to a number of economic, political, and social disabilities, the most obvious of which was the payment of an onerous (see S. D. Goitein on what he learned from his study of the contents of the Cairo Geniza in his "A Mediterranean Society") jizyah, but there were many other conditions as well.
The main point is this. Jews were, not always but often, treated quite badly in Western Christendom. Much depended on the local churchmen (some Bishops were good, some terrible) and noblemen (ditto). Much depended on who would spread the usual blood-libel rumors, and who believed them, and that often depended, as well, on such factors as what was in the atmosphere. For example, the Black Plague of 1348 was by some blamed on "the Jews." And whenever a scapegoat was needed, one did not have far to look. In 1297 Jews were banned from England, in 1396 from France, in 1492 from Spain. These bannings had nothing to do with something Jews had done or not done, but everything to do with local rivalries, powers, resentments, jostlings-for-power, and so on. See, for one example, the role of Simon de Montfort in England.
But while all of this dismal, awful history is well-known (or should be)to the educated -- see "Europe and the Jews" by Scottish historian Malcolm Hay -- it does not serve to justify, must not be invoked to justify, the essential dichotomy, in Islam, between Believer and Infidel, that is rooted in the immutable texts, and that requires Musilms to see themselves as under a duty to spread Islam until it dominantes everywhere, and everywhere Muslims rule. This is felt most strongly in the desire to recapture any land that may once, for any period, have been under Muslim rule, and that applies not only to Israel, but to Spain, and Sicily, and Greece, and the Balkan countries, and Rumania, Bulgaria, much of Hungary, much of Russia, almost all of India, and so on. But even if a country were never part of Dar al-Islam (and Muslims have been making claims to suggest that even America was discovered, and claimed, by Muslims, in a telling and sinister backdating) it is not exempt from Islamic conquest, but merely lower down on Islam's To-Do List. Indeed, it is entirely possible that through deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demogrpahic conquest, certain parts of Western Europe will succumb to Islam, and Muslims rule there, before they manage to "re-take" Sicily, or Israel, or India.
Subhani is playing the well-known game of Tu-Quoque. You, the world's Christians, treated the Jews badly and therefore, you must shut up about the way, under Islam at the same time, Jews and Christians managed to survive. But Subhani does not tell us about a number of things. He does not tell us about the massacres, for example, of thwe Jews in Grenada in 1066, or other massacres under the Almohads, in Fez and elsewhere in North Africa. He fails to mention Maimonides and his "Epistle to the Yemen" in which he, Maimonides, describes the Muslims as the "worst enemy" that the Jews have ever encountered. He fails to explain why, if life for Jews was so wonderful under Islam, did it turn out that 4/5 of the world's Jews lived outside of the Muslim domains by 1900, when they might have stayed in Yemen, or Iraq, or North Africa but apparently preferred to live in Christian lands, despite everything? And he fails to tell us why vast areas, once peopled entirely by Christians (and some Jews), such as North Africa (where Tertullian and St. Augustine were born and lived), became Muslim. He does not tell us why the Christians found they could survive in only a very few places in the Islamic world, as in the mountain fastnesses of Lebanon. He does not tell us any of the things that can be found in Bat Ye'or's study "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam."
Nor, of course, does Omar Subhani tell us what happened to the Hindus under Musliim rule, beginning with the 60-70 million who were killed, during the 250 years of Mughal rule. Why not? Why doesn't he quote from the Qur'an on the subject of Unbelievers? Why doesn't he quote from the Hadith? Why are the texts, and tenets, to be kept fromm our eyes and our minds?
He knows why.
But the Taqiyaa-and-Tu-Quoque method was held up for inspection and dissection at this site long ago. He'll just have to do better. Too many Infidels are consulting the texts of Islam, too many Infidels -- despite the best efforts of their political and media elites -- have eyes to see, and can see what Musilms are doing, and not only to Jews and Christians in the West,, but to Buddhists in southern Thailand, to Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, and India itself, and in Bali, to non-Western peoples, such as the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, the beleaguered Christians in southern Nigeria, in the Philippines, in Pakistan, in North Africa, in Arabia (where one can be tortured or jailed even for possessing a Bible or singing Christmas carols behind locked doors), in Indonesia?. What does he think we will think, as we learn more and more about how Muslims treat non-Mulims everywhere they are able to push them around, or discriminate against them, or persecute them, or take from them, or murder them, with impunity? Does he think we can't read the history books, can't read the testimony of such apostates as Magdi Allam, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and hundreds more who dare to make themselves publicly known, those whose convincing testimonies can be found in such compilations as "Leaving Islam" (ed. Ibn Warraq), or for that matter the personal testimony, given not publicly but still available, by those who through no fault of their own were born into Islam, and in the freedom of the West have chosen to jettison it, for if they are mentally and morally alert, that is a natural reaction, and only physical fear, or embarrassment, or filial piety, and a desire not to cut ties with one's family that may still consist of Believers, keep some from publicly articulating their own unhappiness with Islam.
Oh, Omar Subhani and all the omar-subhanits can keep it up, well-supplied with Saudi and other foreign sources of funds to conduct their campaigns of disinformatsia. But the texts are there. A click, and I, and you, and any Infidel, can find what is in the Qu'ran, what is in the hadith, and we can find, with another click, what ex-Muslims say at, for example, www.faithfreedom.org and many other sites, or can find out what Muslim clerics say, or what is said in the Muslim media, merely by clicking on www.Memri.org. And these possibilities make the job of the omar-subhanis of this world hellish indeed.
Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2008 1:04 PM
"Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace,.....". Except when it's Israel that is the victor. That's what Abba Eban basically said.
Posted by: one of the chosen people at May 14, 2008 1:43 PM
Mr.Spencer:
"I really like to portray myself as a a wealthy industrialist, philanthropist, and man-about-town who, after witnessing the murder of my parents, donned a bat-themed costume in order to fight a series of likewise outlandishly costumed criminals."
Are you finally admitting you really are, as one of your detractors on this site called you, "Freakin' Batman"?
Posted by: Jr. at May 14, 2008 1:44 PM
it must be a real kick in the teeth for nutjobs like hugh and spencer to know that despite their frantic efforts on MAD WATCH..........the real world just ignores them.
Posted by: skouti at May 14, 2008 1:51 PM
skouti:
it must be a real kick in the teeth for nutjobs like hugh and spencer to know that despite their frantic efforts on MAD WATCH..........the real world just ignores them.
But you can't quite bring yourself to do so, can you?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 14, 2008 1:57 PM
"Spencer apparently did not do that because all I had to do was Google "Pact of Umar" and lo and behold I got a nice article about the pact on Wikipedia (yes, I know, it's not exactly scholarly, but I don't have the resources as of now to do a more serious investigation)."
I stopped reading right after that, although the Batman line was a classic.
at May 14, 2008 2:36 PM
It takes courage to show that picture. My hat's off to you Mr. Spencer.
Posted by: HerrMorgenholz at May 14, 2008 3:02 PM
One of the three grew up.
Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2008 3:21 PM
"But you can't quite bring yourself to do so, can you?"
somebody has to look after the lunatics in MAD WATCH eh Rob :)
the rest of the world passes spencer and co by
Posted by: skouti at May 14, 2008 3:28 PM
somebody has to look after the lunatics in MAD WATCH eh Rob :)the rest of the world passes spencer and co by
Posted by: skouti [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 14, 2008 3:28 PM
Then kindly join the rest of the world and leave our merry band of "Madwatchers" alone. Practice what you preach.
Posted by: PRCalDude at May 14, 2008 3:47 PM
I heard on another forum that whenever someone cites Wikipedia, God kills a puppy.
Posted by: Pelayo at May 14, 2008 4:38 PM
Hugh wrote that Muslims are subjects under Islam. I would like to add that Hugh is putting it mildly. All one has to do is surf through the Islamic opinion sites such as Ask Imam or Islam Question and Answer to see the degree to which these creatures are controlled. Questions are asked about everything that could remotely be the subject of Islamic rule from eating to toilet use and from sex to clothing. For every question, there is an Islamic answer that almost always results in someone changing their way of doing something. Islamic hygiene rules have no basis in fact or common sense. I saw an answer to a question about fingernail polish where it was stated that nail polish could not be used because the nail under the polish could not be cleaned during wudu or ghousl.
Men have clothing rules also. Those long tailed, gown like outfits that one sees in Afghan photos are based on the Islamic interpretation that even the male form must be obscured.
Muslims even worry that they might pass gas during prayer, and because of it, Allah will ignore their prayer.
Trying to be a true Muslim is an impossible task and must result in a very dreary existence. So dreary that they must force us all to suffer.
Posted by: Pelayo
at May 14, 2008 5:12 PM
Dear "skouti,"
YOU are the "nutjob." YOU. Oh, also "lunatic." YOU.
Really reeks to be a nutjob and lunatic like you, eh, skouti?
Posted by: darcy at May 14, 2008 6:07 PM
"skouti" the Islamic nutjob lunatic!
Tell us, skouti, exactly when did you have your lobotomy? Because, it shows. Brainless skouti!
Posted by: darcy at May 14, 2008 6:10 PM
These people are unable to think rationally. Logic, reason and common sense does not apply.
Here, on this soapbox from the Grunard, is another Islam-defender who engages in hysterical character assassination, ad hominem attacks, and leaps of illogic. They're all clones of one another:
Islam's refuseniks
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nesrine_malik/2008/05/islams_refuseniks.html
at May 14, 2008 6:55 PM
skouti -
Truth Watch making you mad? Truth hurts, I know, but take two aspirin and then check back with us tomorrow. The swelling should be down by then.
Posted by: champ at May 14, 2008 7:37 PM
>>These people are unable to think rationally. Logic, reason and common sense does not apply. --shiek yer mami
As I said, lobotomy. Islam inflicts a natural lobotomy on its followers - no actual surgery needed.
Posted by: darcy at May 14, 2008 7:46 PM
Subhani reveals himself as an intellectual slob. Skouti doesn't even rise to this level (talk about a double loser). Are there no committed Muslims out there who can take on Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald and Jihad Watch intelligently and accurately? Appears not.
Posted by: Wellington at May 14, 2008 10:17 PM
It is indeed a safe haven here.
Does anyone dare to commit to aid me in enemy waters here?
http://muslimmatters.org/2008/05/12/who-speaks-for-islam-part-3b/
Please?
Posted by: awake at May 14, 2008 11:45 PM
We're all missing the bigger issue here. Robert Spencer has outed himself as the true Batman! Go get 'em, caped crusader.
Posted by: Goob at May 15, 2008 1:32 AM
awake,
I posted a comment over there. Let's see if they post it.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at May 15, 2008 3:23 AM
All Muslim prayers are 'passing gas' as the 'god' they pray to has no ability to answer as does Father God, The God of Israel, as He calls Himself.
'allah' ignores all their prayers, accompanied by belly wind or not.
at May 15, 2008 4:26 AM
All Muslim prayers are 'passing gas' as the 'god' they pray to has no ability to answer as does Father God, The God of Israel, as He calls Himself.
'allah' ignores all their prayers, accompanied by belly wind or not.
Posted by: guide inside at May 15, 2008 4:26 AM
I use this criterion, too. You NEVER hear of any personal testimonials from Muslims praying to Allah and receiving an answer. NEVER. Very strange considering the billions of Muslims in the world. Not one testimonial.
Yet, personal testimonials from Christians receiving "discernments" (see: St. Ignatius of Loyola) from Jesus have abounded for centuries and centuries and centuries. Including from myself. Because Jesus is the Living God.
Allah, a pagan rock idol, doesn't exist. That is the supreme irony concerning the Mohammedans' fierce devotion to Islam. Their "God" doesn't exist.
Posted by: darcy at May 15, 2008 10:18 AM
"Including from myself"
ease off the koolaid dimwit darcy....ROFLMAO!!!
have to feel sorry for christ don't you :)
Posted by: skouti at May 15, 2008 1:41 PM
Quoting Qutb and Mawdudi is strange, indeed. If you wanted to show that Islam was truly radical then I would assume you would want to quote some great Islamic scholar from the classical period, such as Abu Hanifa or Malik - not modern Muslim activists like Qutb and Mawdudi who are well known for their hostility to non-Muslims, even some Muslims. That's like if I wanted to show why the Miami Dolphins are the greatest NFL franchise in history and I only interviewed Dan Marino and Don Shula.
This is great. Has CAIR really given their seal of approval to this diatribe? I think this should be widely publicized. Let it be known that CAIR condemns, in no uncertain terms, the primary ideological mentor of the Muslim Brotherhood!
I can't help wondering how this would be regarded by their handlers in the Muslim Brotherhood, of which they are the propaganda wing.
I think, rather, we have yet another example of "one message for the Kuffar and another for the muslims". They are quite glad to reject Spencer's invocation of Qutb with one hand and with the other commend Qutb, in harmony with the Muslim Brotherhood's own literature, as required reading for all who wish to be active in "Allah's cause" in the west.
I think this statement should be pushed back at them on talk shows and public forums until CAIR commits themselves to an irrefutable position on the validity of the teachings of Qutb. If they will openly condemn Qutb (and work to marginalize the effect of such material in the muslim community) I'll say that we have accomplished a good thing. If they will not, then the words of their own apologist have shown them up for what they are!
Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 15, 2008 1:42 PM
"Including from myself"
ease off the koolaid dimwit darcy....ROFLMAO!!!
have to feel sorry for christ don't you :)
Posted by: skouti at May 15, 2008 1:41 PM
You're an imbecile. You don't know anything. You worship a pagan moon god that doesn't exist. I pity you. You're the dimwit, imbecile Mohammedan. Never heard from your pagan moon god? Right.
"allah" doesn't exist. Who I feel sorry for, and have pity for, is you. You're blind, deaf, and dumb, and you don't even know it.
at May 15, 2008 4:14 PM
P.S. skouti, - Call out to your "God" tonight and see if "he" answers - "he" won't." LOL.
Call out to Jesus - He WILL!
Posted by: darcy at May 15, 2008 4:18 PM
Robert Spencer is the Da'waist's worst nightmare: An Infidel who knows more about Islamic scripture, dogma, and history than most Muslims!
Thank-you, God!
at May 15, 2008 8:28 PM
OT,
Awake,
I posted, but they didn't post my reply to "Amad" (i.e., where he claimed Muslims were not associated with terrorism until "the 50s"), even though several later posts were added by others. My post contained examples of Islamic terrorism, including that ordered by Muhammad. I quoted from the Quran, Hadith, and Sira. I later added another post complaining about the brazen suppression of contrary views at the site.
at May 16, 2008 1:55 AM
Reality check.
Nonie Darwish, apostate from Islam turned-Christian-believer; Magdi Cristiano Allam, also apostasised from Islam to Christianity; and Tawfiq Hamid, raised in Egypt in a 'moderate Muslim' family (like Allam was) but very nearly transformed into a fullscale dedicated kafir-killer by Jemaah Islamiya and Ayman Zawahiri, while studying medicine at university, all testify to the fact that the 'teaching of hate' toward all non-Muslims is both common and commonplace.
I'll start with Darwish.
In another thread I've already quoted Darwish's speech to UC Berkeley, October 2007, but I'll quote her discussion of the 'cursing' of the Infidels as a normal part of discourse within mosques:
'We regularly heard the cursing of non-Muslims from the pulpits of mosques.
'As a young woman, I visited a Christian friend in Cairo during the Friday prayers, and we both heard the verbal attacks on Christians and Jews from the loudspeakers.
'We heard "May God destroy the infidels and the Jews, the enemies of God. We are not to befriend them or make treaties with them." We also heard the worshipers respond "Amen". I heard ‘cursing prayers’ all my life from the pulpits of mosques -- and believe it or not if you grow up with cursing prayers, it can feel and sound normal.
'My Christian friend looked scared, and I was ashamed. That was when I first realized that something was very wrong in the way my religion was taught and practiced." END QUOTE.
Note that - perhaps echoing the position of that earlier self - Nonie does not say 'something was wrong with the content of my religion', or 'wrong with the teachings of my religion' but 'something was very wrong in the way my religion was taught and practised'.
She has since, however, to judge from her present-day choices, in particular, the dangerous choice to publicly identify as a Christian not a Muslim, moved from thinking Islam is being 'wrongly taught' to deciding that there was something wrong with Islam, period; wrong enough, that in the end the only moral thing to do, was to leave it.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 16, 2008 4:56 AM
Now for the testimony of Magdi Cristiano Allam.
First, from a posting by Hugh Fitzgerald:
'In his new book 'Viva Israele' (Long Live Israel) he [Allam] describes his long road from profound admiration for Arafat and "the prophet of pan-Arabism," Gamal Abdel Nasser, and strong support for the Palestinian cause, to his unreserved support for Israel.
"I want to tell you about my slow and tortured path from the ideology of lies, tyranny, hatred, violence and death, to the culture of truth, freedom, love, peace and life, until it ripened into absolute certainly that defending the sanctity of life is more than ever in keeping with defending Israel's right to exist," he writes.'
Secondly, in his 'confessio', written to the editor of Corriere di Sera, he writes of his journey from Islam to Christianity:
"The miracle of Christ’s resurrection reverberated through my soul, liberating it from the darkness in which the preaching of hatred and intolerance in the face of the “different,” uncritically condemned as “enemy,” were privileged over love and respect of “neighbor,” who is always, and in every case, “person”; thus, as my mind was freed from the obscurantism of an ideology that legitimates lies and deception, violent death that leads to murder and suicide, the blind submission to tyranny, I was able to adhere to the authentic religion of truth, of life and of freedom."
Note well: when he says 'the darkness in which the preaching of hatred and intolerance in the face of the 'different', uncritically condemned as 'enemy', were privileged over love and respect of the 'neighbour'" he is talking about...the teachings of Islam, the culture and religion of Islam, as he had experienced it in the here and now, in Egypt and in Italy, in the lives and words not of all Muslims, but certainly of many Muslims, especially those who threatened him with death when he attempted to exemplify a genuinely peaceful and tolerant Islam. It is clear he is referring to the fact that Islam teaches hatred, intolerance, of the non-Muslim.
In the end he too, like Darwish, appears to have been forced to the conclusion that there was nothing to be done, but to leave Islam altogether.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 16, 2008 5:12 AM
Finally, Tawfiq Hamid, in 'The Making of a Jihadist's Mind', first published on April 6, 2007 and reprinted with permission from Current Trends (www.CurrentTrends.org), published by Hudson Institute's Center on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World. Reprinted in Jerusalem Post, 17.1.2008.
He begins by describing his schooldays, where he attended a school run by Christian nuns, with a mixed Christian and Muslim attendance.
"I attended the private Al-Rahebat primary school in the area of Dumiat, which is about 200 kilometers north of Cairo, when I was six years old. Though managed by Christian nuns, the school was supervised by the Egyptian government and required its Muslim students to attend classes on Islam.
"Before each Islamic lesson began, the teacher would dismiss the Christian students, who were then obliged to linger outside the room until the lesson was over.
"Adding salt to the Christian children's wounds, many Muslim pupils would tease them for their faith - telling them that they would burn in hell eternally because they ate pork and were "infidels."
"This made a strong impression on me. I felt sorry for the Christians, sensing that they must be hurt by being treated as an inferior minority in an Islamic society.
" In my short life it was the first time I perceived that my Christian friends were not my equals. My parents had never suggested that we were superior to Christians, and I counted many among my friends. We used to play hide-and-seek and other games together.
"Not only Christian children in the school were persecuted, however; non-practicing Muslims were scorned as well.
" Observant Muslim children would gather around those who did not fast during Ramadan and sing, "You who eat or drink during Ramadan are the losers of our religious... the black dog will tear apart your guts."
"Such treatment of Christians and non-practicing Muslims encouraged us to think that nonbelievers were inferior creatures and that it was right to hate them - they did not follow Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and, therefore, deserved to be tortured in hell forever.
'Though my secular upbringing prevented these thoughts from entirely dominating my mind at the time, other children were affected even more."
Then, in secondary school:
"I remember one particularly defining moment in an Arabic language class when I was sitting beside a Christian friend named Nagi Anton.
"I was reading a book entitled Alshaykhan by Taha Hussein that cited the Prophet Muhammad's words:
"I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill all people [non-Muslims] until they say, 'No God except Allah.'"
"Following the reading of this Hadith, I decisively turned toward Nagi and said to him, "If we are to apply Islam correctly, we should apply this Hadith to you."
'At that moment I suddenly started to view Nagi as an enemy rather than as a longtime friend.
'What further hardened my attitude on this matter was the advice I received from many dedicated Muslim fellow students, who warned me against befriending Christians.
'They based their counsel on the following verse:
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them [an infidel]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Koran 5:51).
'In view of this verse and the previous one, I felt obliged as a Muslim to limit my relationships with my Christian friends.
'The love and friendship I once felt for them had been transformed into disrespect, merely because I wished to obey the commandments of my religion.
'The seductive ideas of my religious studies had diluted the influence of my secular upbringing. By restricting my contact with Christians, I felt that I was doing a great deed to satisfy Allah."
All this took place long before he encountered Ayman Zawahiri - but when he did, while at university, this is what happened:
'At one afternoon prayer session, an imam I had never met before gave a sermon. He was one of the fiercest speakers I had ever heard. His passion for jihad was astonishing.
'He advocated complete Islamic dominance, urging us to pursue jihad against non-Muslims and subdue them to Shari'a - the duty of every true Muslim. His rhetoric inspired us to engage in war against the infidels, the enemies of Allah.
'He particularly condemned the West for the freedom of its women. He hated the fact that Western women were permitted to wear what they pleased, to work and to have the same opportunities as men.
'He dreamt of forcing the West to conform to a Taliban-style system in which women were obliged to wear the Islamic hijab, were legally beaten by men to discipline them and were stoned to death for extramarital sex.'
Hamid concludes by blaming Zawahiri's violent ambitions on an extreme 'reading' of Islam which he calls 'Salafist'; unfortunately he's already shown that the Quran itself readily inculcates an attitude of contempt toward all non-Muslims, which precludes friendship and association. Even his condemnation of Salafism - without his seemingly being aware of this - betrays the fact that it part of the normal continuum of Islam:
'By immersing myself in Salafi ideology, I was better able to judge the impact of its violent tenets on the minds of its followers.
'Among the more appalling notions it supports are the enslavement and rape of female war prisoners and the beating of women to discipline them. It permits polygamy and pedophilia.
'It refers to Jews as "pigs and monkeys" and exhorts believers to kill them before the end of days: Say: "Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? Those [the Jews] whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into monkeys and pigs because they worshiped the powers of evil: these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers]" (Koran 5:60).
'Homosexuals are to be killed as well; to cite one of many examples, on July 19, 2000, two gay teenagers were hanged in Iran for no other crime than being gay.
'These doctrines are not taken out of context, as many apologists for Islamism argue:
'They are central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims, and are currently being taught as part of the standard curriculum in many Islamic educational systems in the Middle East as well in the West.
'Moreover, there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited. '
'Nuff said.
Darwish, Allam, Hamid, each testify to the 'atmospherics' of an Islamic society in which suspicion and hatred of the non-Muslim, shading into contempt and active aggression, appear to be frighteningly commonplace, and derive from the core religious texts.
at May 16, 2008 5:55 AM
Any reason why my post was taken down? I apologize in advance if my comment wasn't appropriate, I was just curious about the justification of lying in Islam based not only off of 3:28 but of Mohammads quote "War is deception" in the context of being in the house of war.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at May 16, 2008 11:12 AM
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.)