| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The audacity of BS
Khaleel Mohammed, a professor at San Diego State University and a popular "moderate Muslim," goes around the country reassuring Jewish audiences by telling them that in the Qur'an Allah gives the land of Israel to the Jews. And it does say that. One key verse is 5:21, which promises Israel to the Jews conditionally: “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”
This sounds great, of course: it suggests that Muslims who fight against Israel are ignoring their own holy book, and that once this verse and others like it are pointed out to them, they will accept the existence of Israel. And it also suggests that the vast majority of Muslims, because of this verse, have no problem with Israel at all.
Unfortunately, the Qur'an also says that the Jews, through their disobedience to Allah, have earned Allah’s curse (2:89, 9:30). Those who are accursed forfeit whatever Allah has given them. Meanwhile, the true followers of Moses's genuine, uncorrupted teachings are the Muslims, and so they are the ones who inherit the promises about Israel.
But that part of the Qur'anic message doesn't make it into Khaleel Mohammed's presentations.
Also, a few years ago Khaleel Mohammed said this about me: "He misquotes verses of the Qur'an, takes things out of context, and shamelessly lies." Since I do not misquote verses of the Qur'an, take things out of context, or shamelessly lie, I contacted him and asked for either documentation of his charges or a retraction. (I also responded to his false charges here.) He refused to retract, even though he did not (and could not) produce even one example of my misquoting verses of the Qur'an, taking things out of context, or shamelessly lying. And he compounded matters by responding: "As for shameless lies, I stand by my assertion, especially after received material in which you claim Muhammad married his daughter in law etc."
In reality, I did not fabricate this "claim," and I am sure that Khaleel Mohammed is well aware of this. The notorious incident of Muhammad's marriage to his former daughter-in-law Zaynab, far from being a "shameless lie," is a well-known and much-discussed element of Islamic tradition. You can read about it in this section of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series.
Anyway, Khaleel Mohammed burnished his credentials as a "moderate" by appearing in Obsession, and for several years now since the film originally appeared he seemed perfectly happy to have done so. Even when it was shown on Fox, as far as I can tell Khaleel Mohammed uttered not a word of demurral or protest (if he did actually issue a statement at that time and I have overlooked it, please send it to me and I will correct this). But now that 28 million copies of the film have been distributed all over the country and it has a higher profile than ever before, Khaleel Mohammed has discovered that it is a "vile piece of propaganda," and has apologized for appearing in it. The apology appears on the Obsession with Hate website about which Marisol recently wrote here.
In an exclusive statement for obsessionwithhate.com, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Obsession interviewee who is an Islamic Studies Professor, delivers a new lethal blow to the film's credibility, exposing what many already knew:“Sadly, it would seem that I have allowed myself to be used. I gave an interview to the makers of “obsession” wherein I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists. I understood that the film would be used objectively, focusing on fanatics who seek to spread violence. I am aware that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that says it is not about Islam in general, but only about extremist interpretations.
"But the material from some of the speakers gives the lie to the disclaimer: many of them are not experts, or have used the mantle of academic qualifications to purvey hate. That their alarmist drivel should be mixed with my whittled down interview proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead. The free distribution of the film to voters in particular districts shows the political chicanery that is the motive, and the secrecy about the financing of the distribution only underlines the evil intent in circulating this vile piece of propaganda.
"Evidence seems to indicate the involvement of Aish ha-Torah in this dishonest enterprise. I find that particularly distressing, because any Jewish organization ought to realize what the film seeks to do: they demonize an entire community to the point where a government takes action to further beleaguer its citizens and resident aliens simply because of their religious identity. This bigotry over religion and identity is precisely what caused the Shoah — and it is sad that those who ought to have learned what hate can engender should seek to imitate Nazi propagandism.
"Yet — for all the nefarious intent of the distributors of the film — I must also accept culpability for allowing myself to be so used. I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islam—but that has nothing to do with the film Obsession. I cannot stand by silently and allow my participation in such satanic demonization of innocents. I apologize to my fellow Muslims for appearing in such a film. I apologize to my Jewish teachers and friends-- who have warned me time and again about falling into such a situation—for not heeding their counsel. And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on. “
The audacity of Khaleel Mohammed's BS never ceases to amaze me. For one thing, he says here, "I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists," when he must know, if he knows anything about Islamic theology, that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that jihad mainly means warfare (by various means, violent and nonviolent) against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. And when he says that the film demonizes an entire community, he is ignoring large sections of the beginning and end of the film, where the film plainly states that most Muslims have nothing to do with the jihadist program, and other elements within it -- including Khaled Abu Toameh's assertion that his religion has been "hijacked," which is presented without contradiction.
And then comes his most audacious bit of BS: "And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on.“ Obsessed with truth? This is a man who misrepresents the Qur'an to Jewish audiences; who has smeared me and my work with false charges that he refuses to retract; and who is either unacquainted with or deliberately deceptive about one of the most famous incidents in Muhammad's career. Obsessed with truth? Obsessed with obscuring it, maybe. Obsessed with destroying it, fine. But obsessed with presenting it? Not Khaleel Mohammed.
So, Dr. Mohammed: I gladly accept the challenge you issued to those who support the film, and am ready to debate you about Obsession, the meaning of jihad, the Jews in the Qur'an, and the life of Muhammad and his marriage to his former daughter-in-law. Or if you'd like to frame the debate in some other way, I am open to your suggestions. I'm happy to see that you have changed your tune from your contemptuous and inaccurate description of our earlier exchanges that still stands here, in which you refuse to discuss substantive issues with me. I look forward to hearing from you at director@jihadwatch.org, and will cheerfully publish your response. I love a good fight too. "Let's get it on" indeed.
Posted by Robert at September 29, 2008 9:33 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
From a comment on a previous article about Khaleel Mohammed:
"That should be the end of Khaleel Mohammed's short happy career as yet one more "Islamic reformer" (move over, Reza Aslan, Mustafa Akyol, Stephen Schwartz, Kamal Nawash, the excitable Irshad Manji, there's room on the bench right here) -- the "reformers" long on publicity-gathering, media appearances, and support of all kinds (would that JW had 1/100th of what they are taking, or rather raking in).
He has a special shtick, I understand, this K.M. Before audiences at Florida synagogues, he behaves like that character in Dickens who was always saying "I wants to make your flesh creep." He warns them about anti-Jewish sentiments among Muslims. He scares them. They love being scared. He tells them his heart and mind are in the right place, and with the support of people like you, we "reformers" will take back Islam. Or words and sentiments to that effect. The audiences love it. He pockets his speaking fees. Not up in the platitude-and-shallow-plongitude range of Tom Friedman, but nothing to sneeze at if you have arrived from Guiana, and are an Assistant Professor somewhere. America, truly the "goldene medina." And right now, all that Reformation of Islam stuff is hot, hot, hot, and so is that related topic, the War For the Soul of Islam. So shell out money, American infidels, and American government programs of Reach-out and Out-reach to the Muslim world. Shell out money, big foundations -- all to those Muslim Bright Young Things who will most assuredly wish away Hadith and Sira, and some even dare speak of a new reading of the Qur'an. Fat chance. How this will be done, who will do it, and how hundreds of millions of Muslims will be persuaded to accept it is never explained. Which hadith will go? Which passages in the Qur'an, the Word of God, do you think you can excise or interpret away? Which details in the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, do you think can simply be cut out? Aisha? The Banu Qurayza? The Khaybar Oasis attack? The murder of Asma bint Marrwan? Or a hundred others? No can do.
Rattle the isnad-chains that bind you as you wish. Take out your Brooks and Warren, and try to interpret away passages in the Qur'an -- perhaps we can convince all those Believers that it is just mystical poetry, Rumi avant la lettre, or like the Song of Songs. You know, allegories. Like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, or Spenser's Faerie Queen, or medieval debat of The Owl and the Nightingale. Stuff like that.
The plums in the pudding: the snippet of made-up dialogue between Robert and the "reformer"; the mursal hadith discussion, and the reading of Qur'an 3.28. But the whole pudding is so nutritious, that I think I am going to save some, so I can savor it s-l-o-w-l-y.
[Posted by: Hugh at May 10, 2005]
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 29, 2008 9:48 AM
To me, the great object lesson of Obsession is that efforts to criticize "Radical Islam" in the interest of not "demonizing" moderate Muslims will still get you slammed as Islamophobic.
One might as well criticize Islam itself, i.e., one might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.
at September 29, 2008 9:49 AM
This is not surprising. When I watched the DVD and saw KM, the first thing that struck me was that he was Muslim and in the film at all. I just thought it was odd that a Muslim--no matter how moderate--would be in a film showing the evil of Islam.
Posted by: Madame Vengier at September 29, 2008 10:01 AM
Robert:
Have you considered issuing your challenge via
Professor Khaleel Mohammed's San Diego State University E mail?
at September 29, 2008 10:04 AM
Of course we must remember that Muslims stick together. Their religion trumps anything else. So it isn't surprising that Khaleel is now bashing the movie. Keep up the good work Robert and let's hope he takes you up on a debate!!
Posted by: Thorum at September 29, 2008 10:04 AM
Imam Robert-
How do you go on day after day after day being forced to preach the true and undiluted Islam to Muslims who already know it and pretend not to. What a martyrdom for a fine mind. Don't you just want to PUKE sometimes?
Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 29, 2008 10:06 AM
Robert, you are the best. Keep it up. You have friends out here.
Posted by: hasvfidra at September 29, 2008 10:15 AM
No doubt, if the professor fails to notice Roberts challenge to debate the issues served up in the film Obsession , I'm sure the Muslims professors at the university will appraise him of the challenge.
Professor Khaleel Mohammed is of course throwing the film Obsession under the bus for fear that this much exposure will lead to to him being identified as denigrating or insulting Islamic teachings.
Posted by: Mackie
at September 29, 2008 10:17 AM
"I look forward to hearing from you at director@jihadwatch.org, and will cheerfully publish your response. I love a good fight too. "Let's get it on" indeed." --RS
Oh, boy! And we've got ringside seats, people! Pass the popcorn!
Of course the Mohammedan is not going to take on Spencer, though.
at September 29, 2008 10:38 AM
Moderate muslim?? No such thing! Once someone like Robert strips away this guy's "defense" it will be shown again that there are no moderate muslims. Conflicts with all that they believe in and taught from the earliest of ages. Excellent work, Robert and I doubt he will take up your challenge but perhaps I will be in error.
Posted by: PatriotUSA at September 29, 2008 11:20 AM
... in the Qur'an Allah gives the land of Israel to the Jews.
So Allah is an ethno-nationalist. Pity his followers haven't realised it yet.
Posted by: watling at September 29, 2008 11:33 AM
"I certainly refuse to apologise for Jihad--which is a defensive war fought against those who declare war on Islam. That many Muslim regimes have confused Jihad and War is something that I admit to--but their crime is their own, and I do not have to apologize for that--no more than I expect every Christian to apologize to every Muslim and every Jew for the crimes committed in the name of Jesus during the crusades."
I love that one, but my personal fave is:
"I am also now informed that there is one website wherein I am quoted out of context. I am vilified for saying that I oppose Christian missionary activity in Saudi Arabia. This somehow has been taken to mean that I oppose democracy, women's rights etc. I don't see the connection: I think Saudi Arabia is a sovereign country, and has the right, in fact, the duty to its citizens to keep them from missionary activity if it so chooses."
at September 29, 2008 12:36 PM
A moderate Muslim is a fiction. There are merely devout Muslims and those who keep their mouths shut but support what the devout do.
Posted by: waltc at September 29, 2008 12:38 PM
The cover up and BS comes from all angles. Just recently a staffer of Kennedy started to BS with apologist sentiments and trying to equate other religions as having the same bad elements as does Islam and saying that one must not single out Muslims and Islam. The PC crap is sickening to the point I just have to say that people with this attitude are equally guilty of committing crimes against humanity as does Islam with its continued killing spree and stifling of human freedom.
Posted by: savsiv at September 29, 2008 12:43 PM
You know there is a scene in 'Obsession' where a mullah takes a sword out of his scabbard and waves it around will encouraging his audience to kill Jews.
I studied fencing in high school and what to reassure the Jewish people that I can take this guy. Easily.
Posted by: tanstaafl at September 29, 2008 1:05 PM
Madame Vengier
"I just thought it was odd that a Muslim--no matter how moderate--would be in a film showing the evil of Islam."
The film doesn't show the evil of Islam from what I can tell, it just shows the evil of that you know "minority of extremists".
Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 29, 2008 1:14 PM
How many people believe that Dr Mohammed was contacted by Muslims angered about the distribution of Obsession and his participation in the film? Could this have inspired him to change his opinion? Not unlike witnesses who change their testimony in Mafia trials after being contacted by "concerned" Mafia members.After all Obsession has been shown on FOX, CNN and screened on college campuses. If Dr Mohammed was duped why didn't he come forward before now?Muslims and their apologists are clearly angered that they have not gained any traction in their campaign against Obsession.
Posted by: Roxane at September 29, 2008 2:14 PM
A moderate Muslim is a fiction. There are merely devout Muslims and those who keep their mouths shut but support what the devout do.
Posted by: waltc at September 29, 2008 12:38 PM
walt, they are "covert sympathizers."
Posted by: darcy at September 29, 2008 2:39 PM
Get some, tanstaafl.
Posted by: undaunted at September 29, 2008 2:44 PM
Dr. Mohammed says,
...I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists.
and then goes on to say,
I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islam—but that has nothing to do with the film Obsession.
Perhaps, when he visits here to see what kind of waves he's set in motion, Dr. Mohammed could explain the relationship between these two claims. For, it appears that the "meaning of Jihad" he has "explained" is in opposition to "many of the traditional interpretations of Islam". I think this would seem to be agreed all around.
Presumably the extremists, on the other hand, are acting in accordance to some of these interpretations which you reject. So, by what twist of logic do you then declare them to be "misusing" the notion of Jihad? If you are the one opposing traditional interpretations and they are not, then, regardless of the fact that we Westerners much prefer your way of looking at things than, say, Zawihiri's, from an Islamic perspective is it not you, Dr. M., who are seen as "misusing" the concept of Jihad, rather than the extremists?
at September 29, 2008 2:53 PM
I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islam—
This was said by the good professor Khaleel Mohammed, well it is easy for him to pick and chose like salad in the US, but it does not matter in the ME, the PAK,, let him profess these words, and he will lose his !$!$ head!
at September 29, 2008 3:57 PM
They are well and truly clones of each other. They seem to wanna outdo each other in who is the slickest and slyest taqiyya spin-doctor and who can best pull the Islamic wool over infidel eyes and ears.
In Australia there is the execrable Yusuf Irfan, a sharia advocate, who slimes and smears everyone in the counter-jihad movement in the vilest ways. He recently claimed on his blog that Dr Daniel Pipes called for the genocide of all Muhammedans in Europe and, in typical fashion, portrays Musulmaniacs as yesteryears Jooozzz, wronged, vilified and discriminated.
Yusuf retracted, of course, after being threatened with a costly lawsuit.(Dr Pipes never made such a statement) On his website 'Planet Irf' Yusuf also has a picture of Robert Spencer which he calls a 'screaming sectarian bigot'. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is regularly smeared as an 'immigration fraud' -(give me a dollar for every Muhammedan who committed 'immigration fraud'-) and I'll buy us the finest luxury yacht for a cruise around the world!.
No, these people are creeps. They are the slime. They should have never been allowed to settle behind enemy lines, in the dar-al-harb.
This Mohammed- professor, like all Mohammeds, shares the same genetic makeup, like all dogs share certain characteristics. They been playing this game too long and got away with it.
It is time we let them know that the jig is up.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 29, 2008 4:08 PM
Dr Mohammad won't debate Spencer. Losing would be too expensive.
That does not mean he won't run his mouth off with more of the same, but he won't debate.
Spencer has every slippery edge of the wet blanket that is Islam, nailed down.
The best have tried to best him and failed. I doubt that Dr Mohammad is the best...
Posted by: duh_swami at September 29, 2008 5:27 PM
Bring on the debate! Like the race caller said in the classic race with Eclipse, the mighty thoroughbred: "Eclipse first, the rest nowhere!"
(Robert, of course, being Eclipse and MK being 'the rest" in this Australian simile)
at September 29, 2008 6:51 PM
The Sura that has God telling Moses to lead the Children of Israel into the Promised Land is authentic, and was probably composed in Muhammad's early days when he was trying to win Jews over to his new religion. The anti-Jewish bits in the Koran came later when he became disillusioned with the Jews who declined his offer to convert. In effect they said "Thanks, but no thanks" and ever since, Moslems have been taught that Jews are not to be trusted because they insulted the Prophet.(Not quite as bad as the Christians who were taught that the Jews killed their God...)
Unfortunately it is these hostile bits that tend to characterize Islamist behaviour today and inspire such troublemakers as Ahmedinijad, Hizballah and Hamas.
When in Egypt-(following the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) I quoted that very "Zionist"Sura to a local Sheikh who smiled and said he could not of course deny the word of God. But, he added, there is no connection between the ancient Children of Israel and the modern Jewish people or the State of Israel so it does not apply....Yet it is important to recall that the Moslem theologians of Al-Azhar gave a green light to President Sadat to make peace with Israel.
Anyone interested in the Jewish influences on the Koran (Bible and Talmud) can check the writings of the 19th century scholar Abraham Geiger. Because of the similarities between Islam and Judaism, compared with much greater differences between Judaism and Christianity, the mediaeval Jewish scholar Maimonides (also called Rambam) had a favourable attitude to Islam.
As Islam does not differentiate between politics and religion, or between mosque and state,any sort of modus vivendi with Islam by Jews or Christians should be sought pragmatically, through political/diplomatic negotiation, as
no ideological or theological concord seems possible, brave attempts by some Jewish rabbis and Christian Ministers notwithstanding.
David Zohar
Jerusalem, Israel
at September 30, 2008 1:16 AM
"Because of the similarities between Islam and Judaism, compared with much greater differences between Judaism and Christianity, the mediaeval Jewish scholar Maimonides (also called Rambam) had a favourable attitude to Islam."
"Remember, my co-religionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us, as Scripture has forewarned us, "Our enemies themselves shall judge us" (Deuteronomy 32:31). Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they."
Ah, yes, Maimonides' admiration for Islam sings through every line of the Epistle to Yemen. This, from a man who slaved obediently to his Muslim masters, and who spat about Jesus "may his bones be ground to dust."
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 30, 2008 1:58 AM
"Moslem theologians of Al-Azhar gave a green light to President Sadat to make peace with Israel"
From Dave above.
Not.
The Jew-hating Sadat was as false as a 13-dollar bill. What he did was sign a hudna, a temporary reprieve to regroup because the Muslims were weak at the time. He did it while wearing a swastika necktie.
Dig a bit deeper, buddy: nothing there but a simple practicality on the part of Sadat.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 30, 2008 2:40 AM
"Modus vivendi." That one actually made me laugh out loud.
Hasn't it occurred to you yet, Mr. Zohar, despite all the evidence on the ground and in the Muslim holy book, that there is no longer any "modus vivendi" for Jews or Christians in Muslim "Palestine"?
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 30, 2008 3:36 AM
I understood that the film would be used objectively, focusing on fanatics who seek to spread violence."Objective" does not mean what he seems to think it means. Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop
at September 30, 2008 5:42 AM
"Yet it is important to recall that the Moslem theologians of Al-Azhar gave a green light to President Sadat to make peace with Israel."
Posted by: Dave
...and Sadat was promptly assassinated..
at September 30, 2008 5:50 AM
So, Prof. Muhammed was tricked by conniving Jews into making political propaganda designed to get John McCain elected? Logic may not be taught in madrassas but dissembling certainly is.
Posted by: tkap at September 30, 2008 8:58 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)