| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Omer Subhani of CAIR is one of the only people who have even attempted to show that what I've written about Islam is inaccurate, so despite the ineptness, mean-spiritedness, and dishonesty of his attempt, I've thought it only sporting to post replies. The thing is elephantine, however, in eleven parts, so it is going to take some time. Here is Subhani's Part II, and you can find my response to his Part I here. This one is mostly about things Greg Davis and Hugh Fitzgerald have said, and they are welcome to join in, but I will sketch out a few responses here myself.
Robert Spencer is either a terrible scholar or a terrible person.
Or a Caped Crusader.
The reason being is that on his web site (http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/) Spencer has a section called "Islam 101" where the author, Gregory M. Davis, claims that he outlines the basics of the Islamic faith. By having this section featured prominently on his web site there can be little doubt that Spencer agrees with and supports Davis' shoddy scholarship. Besides the many errors and outright lies he has placed in this section (yes Robert, I will be more than happy to list all of Davis' errors just like I did about the Pact of Umar argument you made, just send me an email) Davis elaborates on a concept called taqiyya.Taqiyya is a Shia concept that essentially allows Shias to keep their true beliefs secret while they live among Sunnis. Davis claims that the term also applies to Sunni Muslims who are living in "Dar al-Harb" or as Davis implies, the West, and thus he claims that Muslim organizations who are claiming that Islam is a religion of peace are actually lying. Individual Muslims, Davis asserts, may actually believe that their religion is a religion of peace, but Muslim organizations (he never specifies which ones, but from common right wing commentary he probably intends to imply ISNA, ICNA, CAIR, MAS, et al.) are really jihadi propaganda fronts.
Why, horror of horrors! What sort of dastardly fellow would imply that ISNA, ICNA, CAIR and MAS are not as pure as the driven snow?
Let's see. There's a great deal that can be said about those groups, but let's take just one. In "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document that came to light last year, Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram explains that the Brotherhood's work in America is "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
The memorandum concludes with “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Among these organizations are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); and the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), from which came in 1994 the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Muslim American Society (MAS), meanwhile, is the name under which the Brotherhood operates in the U.S.
So what is Davis really saying and what is Spencer really endorsing?
I'm saying I'm against that "grand jihad," Mr. Subhani. Are you? What do you have to say about Akram's memorandum -- and about the other evidence that the groups you name are not as moderate as you would have us believe?
When Spencer is on television he claims that he is providing a voice for moderate Muslims, giving them an intellectual foundation to stand upon to speak out against the radicals and extremists.
Hogwash. I am not a voice for moderate Muslims, and have never claimed to be.
He says that moderate and peaceful Muslims need to speak out against the elements within their religious doctrine that jihadis use to justify violence and "reform" those elements.
Yep.
But based upon Davis' definition of taqiyya how could a person ever know who a sincerely peaceful Muslim is? How would we know such a person isn't deceiving us into thinking that they are a peaceful Muslim when in reality they are just hiding their true jihadi beliefs?
Good questions!
Hugh Fitzgerald, the other ideologue at Jihad Watch, attempts to summarize what taqiyya means. He argues that Sunnis also practice taqiyya (his source is a work by Mervyn Hiskett, a British scholar of Islam - he does not cite a single Islamic source stating that Sunni Muslims must deceive non-Muslims [but why would Muslim scholars actually say this? It's a secret, right Hugh?] although he could find texts from Shia scholars allowing for such a thing in Sunni dominated states).
Here you go, Subhani -- here are two Sunni sources on taqiyya, commenting on Qur'an 3:28:
"Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security." -- Qur'an 3:28
"Allah said next, 'unless you indeed fear a danger from them,' [or as above, 'unless it be that ye but guard yourselves against them'] meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya, or religious deception] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'" -- Ibn Kathir's commentary on Qur'an 3:28
"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." -- the Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Qur'an 3:28
He points out some evidence to support his claims:1. He says that Muslims will cite verses like 2:256 that say "There is no compulsion in religion," without making mention that this verse was abrogated. But was it really? If we turn to the Tafsir of Imam al-Qurtabi, the great Malikite scholar of Andalusia, he says one of the interpretations of this verse is that it was not abrogated and he cites among others, Hasan al-Basri, one of the greatest scholars of the Salaf, as holding the opinion that the verse was not abrogated by Surah al-Tawba. In fact, the verse serves as evidence, in al-Basri's opinion, that the meaning of the verse is intended for People of the Book, Jews and Christians, who live in the Islamic state. Qurtabi cites a hadith of Umar where he confronts an old Christian woman and asks her to become Muslim, but she turns down his offer. Umar proceeds to recite the relevant verse and asks God to be his witness to the affair.
I don't think that the majority of Islamic sources say 2:256 was abrogated, and have never hung an argument on its having been abrogated. In my Qur'an Blog on 2:256, I point out that one early authority, Mujahid ibn Jabr, does say that this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. I also note there that Tabari (whom Subhani claims I haven't read) says that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29). And the fact that I take note of this disagreement among Muslim interpreters of the Qur'an makes Subhani's subsequent assertion look silly:
What Spencer, Davis, and Fitzgerald do not understand is that there is no one interpretation of the verses of the Qur'an that is above all the others.
What Omer Subhani doesn't understand is that before criticizing someone's work, it is somewhat helpful actually to read it. The Q-Blog on 2:256 was posted on July 15, 2007; Subhani's post I'm discussing here was posted on January 8, 2008. That means he had nearly six months to discover, from this example as well as others, that I don't think that there is "one interpretation of the verses of the Qur'an that is above all the others." Unless, of course, all he is interested in is demonization, not accuracy.
You can find an opinion to support your assertions if you look around (like the jihadis do). There are plenty of Muslim scholars who say that 2:256 was abrogated, but there are just as many who say that it was not - and Hasan al-Basri is not just a someone, he was arguably the most pious and knowledgeable Tabi'i, being the student of Ali, may God ennoble his face.2. Fitzgerald says that when Muslims say jihad is really a spiritual struggle they are not telling the truth. He asserts that the hadith that states that the struggle against the ego is the greater jihad has weak chains of transmission and he also states that this interpretation is a "recent one in Islam." He is wrong on both counts (honestly, this is like talking to a Salafi).
First, how could the interpretation of jihad being a spiritual struggle be a "recent one" when the hadith is mentioned in so many ancient Islamic texts that it couldn't possibly be limited to the last hundred years? The fact is, it is not a "recent" interpretation. The Muhaddithun, as Fitzgerald is wont to cite, and which ones he does not mention, have mentioned this hadith in many works, including by notable hadith shcolars like: al-Bayhaqi, al-Khatib, and ibn Hajr al-Asqalani. These scholars have criticized the chain of narrators, but none of them have said the hadith was forged, only that the chain was weak, which Fitzgerald is correct in noting.
Subhani is trying to blame Hugh for saying that the "greater jihad/lesser jihad" hadith, the primary foundation for the idea that jihad is principally a spiritual struggle, is weak -- as if Hugh made up that idea. In fact, the 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya wrote: “This hadith has no source and nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.”
Yeah, Hugh made that up. Sure, Subhani.
But what does Fitzgerald know about hadith? Obviously nothing because if he knew anything then he would know that just because a hadith has a weak chain that it's meaning can still be sound. In the case of this hadith, many of the scholars of Islam, all before a hundred years ago, confirm the authenticity of the statement concerning the greater jihad being that of the struggle against the ego. In fact, some of the scholars say that the jihad against the ego is a precondition before a military jihad can be waged.
But the military jihad can then be waged. I feel so much better!
Even ibn Taymiyya is of such an opinion, where he is reported to have said by his student, ibn al-Qayyam: "The jihad of nafs (ego) and hawa (desires) is the foundation of jihad of the disbelievers and hypocrites; one cannot do jihad of them before he first does jihad of his nafs and hawa, then he goes out and fights them."Ibn Taymiyya died in 1328 CE. Hopefully that's old enough.
Sure is, Subhani. Oh, and by the way, don't forget Ibn Taymiyya's statement I quoted just above: "Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.”
In any case, and refutation of shoddy scholarship not withstanding, Davis' concept of taqiyya puts Muslims living in the West in an extremely dangerous position. The reason being is that if enough Westerners were to believe Davis' argument about taqiyya then many Westerners could become extremely worried about their Muslim neighbors even if their Muslim neighbors speak out vociferously against terrorism in the name of their religion. Every Muslim organization looks suspect, even Jihad Watch's buddies, Muslims Against Shariah. How do we know they are really telling the truth? The danger of saying that Muslims hide their true beliefs is that it portrays Muslims, all Muslims, no matter their track record, as suspect. No Muslim can be trusted because no matter what issues from their mouth they could be deceiving the Western public.
Yes, indeed, it puts you in a difficult position. But it is not one that I made for you, Omer Subhani, or that Greg Davis or Hugh Fitzgerald made for you. It is one that you have made for yourself, not least by your disingenuousness here about CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, and MAS, and about the Sunni foundations of taqiyya itself, as I laid out with the quotes from Ibn Kathir and the Tafsir al-Jalalayn. If you had discussed all that honestly, maybe people would be inclined to trust you. But you didn't, did you? Now, why is that?
This is flat out racism [...]
What race is Islam again?
[...] and deception and serves no other purpose than to marginalize those Muslims who do speak out and to cast doubt upon the positive efforts Western Muslims are undertaking. It's xenophobia, it's racist, it's disgusting.
Yeah, yeah. I'll tell you what, Subhani: post something about the Islamic supremacist statements, the terror arrests, and the unindicted co-conspirator status of CAIR, and about the traditional Sunni view of Qur'an 3:28, and maybe I will grant you are making some "positive efforts." Until then, your own words are what casts your position into doubt.
Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald - you guys are bigots. Your "scholarship" is pathetic. It's always great to hear Spencer sitting back in a chair during an interview claiming that no Muslim can really argue with him regarding his accusations because he's studied traditional Islamic sources and he knows the real truth.
All right. Next time I'll say it standing up.
The fact is, Spencer uses the same pathetic methodology employed by jihadis to justify their murder and mayhem. They both claim that what they present is the true Islam. Spencer does nothing to help "moderate" Muslims. He paints Islam as a religion of destruction and then tells Muslims to go fix it, but then he says that traditional Islam justifies terrorism, rape, wife beating, etc. So what is a Muslim to fix?
Uh, the justifications for terrorism, rape, wife beating, etc.
Spencer, the problem with you is that you want it both ways. You want Muslims to open up a dialog with the West and reform their religion, but then you want to show that the Islam the jihadis associate with is the real Islam, the Islam that has always been practiced and enforced throughout Islamic history.
I've never said that the jihadis' Islam is the real Islam. There is no central authority in Islam that can rule that one Islam is the real Islam and some other Islam isn't. But the agreement of the schools of jurisprudence on jihad violence and Sharia supremacism makes it hard for peaceful Muslims to rebut the jihadists' claim to represent the real Islam. The only way genuine and sincere reformers might ever possibly rebut this claim will be by confronting the violent and supremacist elements of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and reinterpreting or rejecting them -- not by pretending they don't exist.
As I have shown above, Surah al-Tawba is not the defining verse dictating relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.
I wonder sometimes if Omer Subhani even pays attention to what he is writing. He has shown "above"? This is his first mention of Surah al-Tawba (sura 9 of the Qur'an) in this post.
Muslim scholars for all of Islamic history have noted that the jihad against the ego always comes before the jihad against Islam's enemies, this being based upon the teachings of the Prophet himself, peace and prayers be upon him.
Great. Now if he could come up with some Muslim scholars who say there should not be warfare at all based on religious supremacism, we might be getting somewhere. But don't hold your breath.
The idea that Iran, Saudi Arabia, a-Qaeda are practicing things incorrectly is never even considered a possibility by Spencer. He just goes along with them, attempting to demonstrate how they're right, how their Islam is the right one.
I'm not in the least interested in demonstrating that they're "right." I have noted, and will continue to note, that they base their entire appeal to Muslims on the claim that they are "right," and that instead of even trying to counter them, Omer Subhani and his ilk spend all their time demonizing me.
You're no friend of Muslims, Spencer. You're a jihadi yourself.
Yeah, watch for my next beheading video, Omer!
Posted by Robert at May 15, 2008 5:37 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
What Omer Subhani doesn't understand is that before criticizing someone's work, it is somewhat helpful actually to read it.
Zing!
Posted by: Always On Watch![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 15, 2008 7:27 AM
There have been muslims here in the past that did not prevail in their arguments, but did a much better job of failing than Omar.
And there are nine more installments? Omar gets nine more chances to put us in a state of awe, with his brilliant writing and razor sharp intellect?
Uh huh...I can hardly wait for chapter three...
at May 15, 2008 7:54 AM
" . . . ISNA, ICNA, CAIR, MAS, et al.) are really jihadi propaganda fronts."Posted by: heroyalwhynessGlad he mentioned specifically which ones . . .the following links provide detailed background information for each of those groups. Of note is a feature at DTN which provides "visual mapping" of each organizations connections (a jihad web if you will)
The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, who published Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam."
Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance (CDT) called CAIR "the most accomplished fifth column" in the United States. Jamal Hasan, also of CDT, said that CAIR's goal is to spread "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook."
According to Kamal Nawash of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, CAIR and similar groups "condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism," and adds that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states."
at May 15, 2008 8:24 AM
1. He says that Muslims will cite verses like 2:256 that say "There is no compulsion in religion," without making mention that this verse was abrogated. But was it really? If we turn to the Tafsir of Imam al-Qurtabi, the great Malikite scholar of Andalusia, he says one of the interpretations of this verse is that it was not abrogated and he cites among others, Hasan al-Basri, one of the greatest scholars of the Salaf
"the great" and "one of the greatest" immediately triggers the saying
good, better, best . . .never let it rest, till your good gets better and your better is best
snicker
The dualism of political Islam allows for such deceptive games.
Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.Posted by: heroyalwhyness
at May 15, 2008 8:37 AM
"you guys are bigots. Your "scholarship" is pathetic."
Strange that this is always the inevitable condemnation even for the greatest scholar, when he or she is not Muslim and tells the awful truth about this abominable cult. That's also the reason why they go apesh*t over apostates.
If Spencer and Fitzgerald were Muslims and JW were a typical hate-site these wonderful Muslims would be only too pleased to defend it at all cost and praise you over the moon.
"There is no central authority in Islam that can rule that one Islam is the real Islam and some other Islam isn't."
This is also a line that pops up now and then when guys like Subhani try to defend the faith. Sometimes they use it as an excuse, while at other times they use it in the defense of Islam.
It is truly sickening how twisted and vile these people are, obliged to follow this belief-system that makes them do it.
Its also quite comical when they display their disability to reason and to refute anything. But it ends when they become all hysterical and aggressive and resort to violence. But then again, that is the historical pattern.
The lies and the liars behind them are revolting.
Here is another one that makes a living doing just that:
Terrorism Is Not Jihad
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 15, 2008 9:29 AM
Spencer does nothing to help "moderate" Muslims.
Why do Muslims believe that they are being treated unfairly when non-Muslims do not approach their "sacred" texts with an open mind and come to their same conclusions that their closed Muslim minds had inculcated into them before they reached sentience? That is not the responsibility of non-Muslims. The approach of non-Muslims is derived from necessity (because otherwise they would care less),
1) Who did it? (e.g. 9/11, 7/7, etc.)
2) Why did they do it?
3) Is their expressed motivation consonant with the actual content of their claimed source documents forming the basis of their ideology?
4) If yes, how should I react to the universe emanating from the source documents?
That is all I care to know, that is my only responsibility. I don't actually find Islam interesting, nor would it be any concern to me if it ceased to exist. I would have preferred to have never known anything about it. It should be Mr. Subhani's priority to convince the jihadists that THEY have it wrong, not mine, or Spencer's.
There is no central authority in Islam that can rule that one Islam is the real Islam and some other Islam isn't.
If people act on it, and there are consequences, that is "authority" enough. If the fruit is bad, the tree is bad.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 15, 2008 9:37 AM
Subhani is trying to blame Hugh for saying that the "greater jihad/lesser jihad" hadith, the primary foundation for the idea that jihad is principally a spiritual struggle, is weak -- as if Hugh made up that idea. In fact, the 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya wrote: “This hadith has no source and nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.”
Yeah, Hugh made that up. Sure, Subhani.
But what does Fitzgerald know about hadith? Obviously nothing because if he knew anything then he would know that just because a hadith has a weak chain that it's meaning can still be sound. In the case of this hadith, many of the scholars of Islam, all before a hundred years ago, confirm the authenticity of the statement concerning the greater jihad being that of the struggle against the ego. In fact, some of the scholars say that the jihad against the ego is a precondition before a military jihad can be waged.
But the military jihad can then be waged. I feel so much better!
Even ibn Taymiyya is of such an opinion, where he is reported to have said by his student, ibn al-Qayyam: "The jihad of nafs (ego) and hawa (desires) is the foundation of jihad of the disbelievers and hypocrites; one cannot do jihad of them before he first does jihad of his nafs and hawa, then he goes out and fights them."
Ibn Taymiyya died in 1328 CE. Hopefully that's old enough.
Sure is, Subhani. Oh, and by the way, don't forget Ibn Taymiyya's statement I quoted just above: "Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.”
--------------
Great responses quoted above by Robert. This was a beating.....Subhani just walked into a running train.
Regarding the Qur'an 3:28...wasn't there another discussion on that issue several months ago with another Islamic apologist? It's been a while, but I believe Hamas may have either referenced Qur'an 3:28 or based an action of deceiving Abu Mazens Fatah for some advantage, perhaps to escape as I remember it being around the time of the Gaza take over by Hamas. I remember Hanniyeh talking about the deception of Fatah openly in public and justifying the action which I thought was based on that very verse, and an Islamic apologist was in here trying to refute the validity of the interpretation of Qur'an 3:28.
Anyone remember that?
Also...I may be wrong, correct me if I am but even without that 3:28 being used, what about the greatest example to all Muslims? Didn't Mohammad say clearly that "War is deception"? Now, if the Islamic world divides the world into the house of submission and the house of war, of all lands not ruled by Islamic law being the "War", then that is the theatre of war is it not? If that's the case, being a theatre of war, then Mohammads statement of "war is deceit" could also be justified by good Muslims as grounds lie and deceive the infidels, couldn't it?
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at May 15, 2008 10:27 AM
Robert,
Thank you for the Sunni Taqiyya references. I'll be sure to put them to good use, as I, too, have had several run ins with Muslim apologists who claim Taqiyya is only a Shia doctrine.
Cheers
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at May 15, 2008 10:51 AM
I believe their Taqiyya.
The danger of saying that Muslims hide their true beliefs is that it portrays Muslims, all Muslims, no matter their track record, as suspect. No Muslim can be trusted because no matter what issues from their mouth they could be deceiving the Western public.When a Muslim tells you he is doing Jihad, believe him, for he is telling you the truth. If he says it’s an inner struggle against the ego, believe him, because his struggle is to make himself a better 'slave of Allah' in total submission to Mohammad’s doctrines. If he tells you Jihad is to conquer the unbelievers for Allah, believe him, because the same submission he struggles with internally is being projected on everyone else, with violence if necessary, to make all slaves of Allah. If he tells you his is a peaceful Jihad, believe him, because he will do everything in this power by any means possible, including peaceful Da’wa and deceitful legal means, to make everyone a slave of Allah. But if he tells you his Islam is a 'religion of peace', that is the Taqiyya that no one should believe, because his prophet founding this evil cult said clearly “war is deceit.”
Do not believe the liar except when he threatens your freedoms, he hates your freedoms, and he will kill you for being free rather than a slave of Allah... then believe him. That is his only Taqiyaa I will believe, because then he's actually telling you the truth.
at May 15, 2008 1:28 PM
What Omer Subhani and his like count on is ignorance of the West and of their own followers.
The more that the West (and for that matter, at least 80 percent of the Believers worldwide) knows about Islam, the more difficult it is for Omer Subhani to practice taquiyya. (sidebar for Omer, if the Shi'a practice taquiyya to deceive the Sunni, remember that the Shi'a consider the Sunni to be apostics. This would indicate that it is alright for the Shi'a to use taquiyya when confronted with powerful nonbelievers of any religion. 'course, we all know (wink, wink) that taquiyya can be used by any Muslim in the face of the enemy.)
Silence = Death
Read the Qur'an, both believer and nonbeliever.
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 15, 2008 3:04 PM
"What sort of dastardly fellow would imply that ISNA, ICNA, CAIR and MAS are not as pure as the driven snow?"
Me.
Posted by: DCWatson at May 15, 2008 7:25 PM
Time for a reality check on Subhani's soft soap.
Here's Nonie Darwish, speaking at UC Berkeley in late October 2007; speech published online in FrontPageMagazine.com on Thursday October 25 2007.
She grew up in a standard Muslim milieu, in Cairo and in Gaza, and whose family attended mosques pretty much as 'churched' westerners attend churches.
"I was born and raised as a Muslim in Cairo, Egypt and the Gaza Strip; a time when President Nasser was committed to unify the Arab world and destroy Israel. In the 50’s, my father headed the Egyptian military intelligence in Gaza and started the Fedayeen, which means ‘armed resistance and self sacrifice’"...
And she reports what she heard in elementary school in Gaza, and in the mosques, as a child, a teenager, a young adult.
In school:" I attended Gaza elementary schools. It is there that we learned hatred vengeance and retaliation; peace was never an option; but a sign of defeat and weakness. Jews were portrayed as less than human; I was told ‘don’t take candy or fruit from a stranger, it could be a Jew trying to poison you’. They filled our hearts with fear of Jews; that made hatred come easy and terrorism acceptable, even honorable".
As for the mosques:
"We regularly heard the cursing of non-Muslims from the pulpits of mosques.
"As a young woman [i.e. 1960s or early 1970s] 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."
And now for the really juicy bit, right on the topic of this discussion,:
"On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions
1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam.
{GOT THAT, EVERYBODY? HE SAID IT. NONIE HEARD IT. LYING TO NON-MUSLIMS IS PERMITTED, IF IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ISLAM].
2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them.
And 3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship."
"Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships. {NOTA BENE!}
"Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11? Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors.
"By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth; truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam."
There you go. Straight from the heart of the SUNNI Muslim world - for I am reasonably sure that the milieu Darwish inhabited was Sunni rather than Shia.
She's talking about everyday teaching and preaching - she's talking about a Muslim cleric instructing kids on TV, presumably in Cairo. Egyptian television. She's talking about daily life, Islam-on-the-ground in Nasser's supposedly-socialist Egypt and Mubarak's supposedly-friend-of-the-USA Egypt.
And she's saying that lying to advance Islam is permitted, and taught.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 16, 2008 2:33 AM
Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.org is On Special Assigned Mission
You don’t have to dig deep in the large rice cooking pan to know the state of cooked rice; the taste of single tiny bit of rice grain atop may reveal that how sumptuous and taste full the rice eatery is!
I bear repeating it here that Robert Spencer the director of Jihadwatch.org work clearly shows that man is on a ‘special assigned mission’ to purport the Islamists as an enormous danger for the future of mankind and to build up scenario through media that Islamists bear awful designs to gain supremacy through coercion and carry out a forceful conversion of free western world into fold of Islam. Where as his studies consists of ‘pick-n-pluck’ for his ‘twist and turns’ can easily be dismissed because of their lack of academic seriousness; but his desperation clearly shows that man has a mission to designate, ‘Islam’ as enemy for wars to come. This may probably be a matter of surprise for him to know that Jihad (by sword as he purports) in his JW is totally not an Issue of Islam all together.
His work for sure reveals that Robert is totally not well versed with the divine theological applications in the fields of religion and that religion totally belongs to God Almighty and remains His domain all the times. If only he knows that from the very inception of our Modern religion that initial Word of god was revealed to our common father Abraham*, who imparted the early educations followed by Moses* the teacher of Judaic. Judaic were later reared and groomed by the various mediatory prophets, till Jesus* arrived with the well sought reformation plans. The earnest desire of God and utmost efforts of all the old Prophets has been to bring the mankind out of darkness and bestowed and bring up its conscious to its adult hood stage for their final exposition to embrace Islam; which is the final word Of God in the grand plan in God's religion. Islam is very much now there available in its complete form at its summit offering us the unique guidance for the mankind with its book of guidance - the Glorious Quran.
But here we find a riddle, a self created quagmire which needs a thorough thrashing to come to know the real problem and what is the real matter of contention of the day. Presently we all are living in an era where the last commandment of God in the form of Islam is here with us.
We see that where as Islam has unfurled its banners and is calling all others to come join in and get all together under one flag the way God needs us to do.
There are many other remnants from the older denomination also but in the main stream of modern Abraham* religion; we have the God wrath stricken Jews that for last some 3000 years they could not find any peace and security in their lives till to day for their doings; the other most inspirational creed of the world are the Christian, who in the light of the fore told prophesy that they will be superseded in future; opted to defy the forth coming new commandments and have since devised various mythologies to monopolize the deity of God. They declared their reformer the Jesus*, the only source with whom the salvation of entire mankind rests. They ultimately devised the Myth of declaring Jesus* a God (naoz billah).
Christians were the main part of the scheme in action before the final commandments were to be revealed for the completion in religion. Christian had to excel in all the spheres of life and advancements, of artisan and skills and surely they did. But where it went wrong was that in pursuance of their salvation mythologies and purported monopoly in deity; they ended up in subjugation and colonization of almost the entire glob by them. It was the atrocious colonial onslaught and rapacious greed of their to deprive the world, of the economic resources that this exercise was made to a grinding halt in the wake of Adolf Hitler adventurism of conceit to grab-n- rule the entire Europe ( see in WW II).
Consequently, all the colonial powers were compelled to retreat and come back to save their home lands in Europe; but the old flames of colonial ambitions are again being re-kindled and a mass atrocious killings are again on in Middle East to regain the hegemony of west but probably this is a final call for the final Armageddon for which Robert Spencer is made to play a little part to designate Islam as enemy.
But Islam simply calls every one with out any hidden agenda to harkens and join in and get gather under the banner of God in Islam. Islam is the destiny of mankind but the people who have much more colonial like ambitions at stake i.e. Christian and others may offer vehement resistance to avert the plans. But; who has ever been successful to desperate the design of God.
Islam is our God’s design offering a life style to go by in the way of God; possibly what objection we the subject of Almighty have to stay in the old ruts? Probably nil! Resist we may but to come to the terms and submit at the God Almighty will; this we have to.
----------
Adabarez
(* Allah blessings be with them all)
at May 16, 2008 6:29 AM
'adabarez'
I believe Nonie Darwish. Nonie Darwish's testimony about what it is like to live under 'family sharia' (even the somewhat modified version practised in Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s) chimes with the accounts of other defectors from the Empire of Islam.
And I say to you: Ubul Kassim the Arab war-lord, alias 'mohammed', but most accurately diagnosed by Maimonides as ha-Meshugga, the Madman, has NOTHING to do with the God who is worshipped by Jews and by Christians.
Ha-Meshugga's example, when religiously followed, leads to ruin and death.
Let's compare the core assumption of Islam with one of the core teachings of the Bible.
I have said it before and I will say it again. The rabbis, and Yeshua of Nazareth, teach what is called 'the Golden Rule': "do to others as you would they should do unto you".
This principle applies not only to fellow-Jews, or fellow-Christians, but to ALL one's fellow humans. Observe Christians lovingly offering help to Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists, after the tsunami; to Buddhists, in Burma, after the cyclone. We DO NOT do it in order to convert people. We would do it even if we knew in advance that NO ONE we helped would join our faith.
Irene Sendler, a Pole, possibly of nominal Catholic faith, but certainly reared within a Catholic Christian milieu, rescued 2500 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto. Although she concealed them under Christian names, with Christian families or in Catholic orphanages, she carefully kept track of which child had received which 'cover' name, so that after the war they could rejoin their families and rediscover their heritage. They would be completely free to do so. She hid those names and kept the secret even under Gestapo torture. Charity - charity given to fellow humans, a secular or Catholic Pole helping persecuted Jews, simply because she believed it was what any decent human being would do.
That's the Golden Rule: it crosses ethnic and religious boundaries.
And you, 'adabarez', have the absolute HIDE to argue that you have something that can possibly improve upon the intellectual and moral framework that created an Irene Sendler.
You don't. For Islam has no Golden Rule. Instead it explicitly teaches harshness and cruelty and an attitude of murderous contempt toward all non-Muslims; 'Compassion' is to be extended only toward fellow Muslims (yet even within the ummah genuine love and compassion appear in fact to be in very short supply).
In 1920 Samuel Zwemer (d. 1952), an American scholar of Islam, and former editor of Moslem World, wrote (in "Moslem World," Vol. 10, pp. 154-155):
“Its [Islam's] intolerance and persecuting spirit have been revealed within the past few years, the blood of a million martyrs {the Armenian Christians, mass murdered by the Turkish Muslims} testifying to the failure of Islam, its absolute failure to understand the words that open every chapter save one of their Sacred Volume: ‘God the Merciful and Compassionate’.
'A few years ago one of the leading Moslems of Baghdad wrote an article for a French journal entitled, The Final Word of Islam to Europe :
‘For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers; love, charity, fraternity toward believers; contempt, disgust, hatred, and war against unbelievers."
So spoke a 'leading Moslem of Baghdad', in the early years of the twentieth century.
Jews and Christians teach and practise the Golden Rule.
Islam does not.
And, that, I must say, quite settles the matter as far as I am concerned.
What sane person would choose cruelty rather than charity?
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 16, 2008 8:14 AM
A fatwa from the esteemed Sunni scholars at Islamqa:
The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”
[al-Anfaal 8:39]
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).
These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.
And Allaah is the Source of strength.
Islamqa.com, by the way, is one of the most linked-to sites by North American Mosques and Islamic societies as a source for information about Islam. This represents a de facto seal of approval by thousands of organizations and prominent Islamic leaders in our part of the world for the information found there.
This particular fatwa has remained on their site for at least 2 years, has been the subject of much discussion, and yet has not been removed or altered, which indicates the degree of orthodoxy with which it is regarded by the maintainers of the site and the thousands of Islamic organizations that link to it.
Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 16, 2008 9:04 AM
I feel like writing a cheque or at least buy him McDonald meal when I meet Robert Spencer that he has stirred the Muslims at least in US and made them awake from their self imposed hibernation that they went into after the fall of Ottoman Empire. But our main concern remains that with what aim JW is in operating and why the JW activities have increased manifolds; soon after that Robert Spencer was consulted by United States Central Command and the U.S. State Department as well as the German Foreign Ministry. Ever since he is frequently appearing on global media networks such as the BBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, PBS, C-Span, as well as on numerous radio programs. Plus, Publication of books and giving them high profile commendations for his work at the organisations like Heritage Foundations etc is unique.
JW can not be called a spiritual assemblage pushing the Doctrine or Mythology of Christianity or the view point of Judaic that they normally pretend. Here people are found on a assigned job to pick and pluck and make a bill banner out of it to defame any act, uttering or hear say (it may not be of any significance) from the Muslim World which is always a retaliatory reaction to their subjugation that they face and also are trying to recover from the inflictions and pangs of old colonial era.
Awakening or rebirth of nations always takes heavy tolls; the man conscious also awakes with it and takes the help of ones emotions to rise. Seeing the trivial deprivation and subjugation inflicted upon them by the oppressing forces in Muslim world has made the Muslims emotional and defiant; that is why we find such emotional mutterings in order to break the shackle of their bondages. This is the areas where organisations like JW have the dictates to work upon before this that Muslims re-emerge as a viable power.
The oppressor forces are all out again to subjugate them and deprive them of their natural resources by restricting the technological advancements, education and knowledge.
------------
Adabarez
at May 17, 2008 6:46 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.)