| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
For starters, Jesus would tell the truth
Khaleel Mohammed, the Islamic "scholar" who appeared in Obsession but (now that the film is being distributed everywhere) has suddenly discovered it to be "Islamophobic," has responded to my post here with an article at The American Muslim -- a reliably truth-free publication -- about "Spencer and his satanic cabal."
His response consists of the usual series of insults to my integrity and scholarship, accompanied by the usual failure to provide any actual evidence of my alleged egregious errors. He even asks his readers to take his word that what he is saying is true:
Spencer seeks to hoodwink his readers by talking of Jihad being war...and that idea, rather obviously, is not accepted by scholars of Islam (Muslim and non-Muslim). I am not even going to get into detailing that I do not deny that there are some Muslims who attempt to warp the meaning into that...but throughout Islamic history, there have always been scholars who have harkened [sic] to the true meaning.
What is that true meaning? Which scholars? What establishes that the Muslims who believe that jihad includes warfare are "warping" its meaning? Khaleel Mohammed offers no answers -- we just have to take it all on faith.
And then, displaying again the audacity of his dishonesty, he accuses me of being the one who doesn't work from evidence:
I guess it irks you that your “scholarship” is not accepted among people of conscience and discernment. Perhaps, instead of knowledge, you rely on faith to argue against Islam and anyone who is a Muslim. Since you are such an upstanding crusader, I wonder: what would Jesus do in this situation?
What would Jesus do, Dr. Mohammed? For one thing, he would tell the truth. But that is a concept with which you are quite obviously unacquainted. For example, Khaleel Mohammed says this:
This time around he raises the red-herring and disproven nonsense about Muhammad marrying his daughter-in-law--and here, either Spencer is a bigger ignoramus than I think, or he has once again resorted to prevarication. It is difficult to figure out where he is coming from. The issue of whether or not an adopted son like Zaid is technically Muhammad’s son could be answered by any first week student of Islamic law. Perhaps Spencer should go reattend Professor Carl Ernst’s classes and get some deprogramming from a bona-fide expert on Islam.
I never had the pleasure of being a student of the estimable Carl Ernst, so Khaleel Mohammed's "reattend" is inaccurate.
But more importantly, in this Khaleel Mohammed suggests that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, did not actually marry his daughter-in-law, because his adopted son Zayd was not to be considered his son at all -- and that I am either unaware of all this or lying about it. It is "difficult" for Khaleel Mohammed to know where I am "coming from" because he apparently has not read, or does not want his readers to know about, my discussions of this incident, in which I deal with the material he claims I ignore. See, for example, this section of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series:
Allah here emphasizes that an adopted son cannot be a true son, and so by extension Zaynab was never really Muhammad’s daughter-in-law at all, and there is no cause for scandal.
If Khaleel Mohammed had cared to spend even a moment on research before slinging his accusations, he might have discovered that I also discuss the issue of adoption and its relationship to the Zaynab incident on page 67 of my 2006 book The Truth About Muhammad. But he prefers to pretend that I ignore all this, out of either stupidity or bigotry, in order to portray Muhammad in the worst possible light.
Yet it is I whose scholarship is poor and who issue "poison-pen" tirades.
"Satanic." "Ignoramus." "Bigotry." "Crusader." Khaleel Mohammed's frenzied name-calling only highlights his intellectual bankruptcy, his contempt for truthful and honest dealing -- and his increasing desperation at being exposed as the poseur he is.
Posted by Robert at October 1, 2008 9:03 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Khaleel Mohammed? Who is he? Never heard of him, until now.
What would Jesus do? He would warn everyone that Muhammed was/is a false prophet.
Posted by: Abscedere![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 1, 2008 9:10 AM
Perhaps your criticism gets to him because you interfere with his income, especially those talks at synagogues and elsewhere where, carefully telling some semi-truths while also carefully avoiding others, he both offers a brivido-inducing "I-wants-to-make-your-flesh-creep" presentation but then reassures his audience that it is easy to derive all kinds of good things from the same texts -- skip abrogation -- and of course, once the subject of Muhammad, the Perfect Man, is touched, then there can be no criticism, express or implied, whatsoever.
But what is Khaleel Mohammed? A native of Guyana, who came to this country, and apparently he "seen his opportunity and he took it," like Jay Gould in the Gilded Age. A Muslim, he parlayed that into being an "expert" on Islam. Next stop: possible agent, bookings, the works. Shtick: Good Moderate Muslim, Who Both Warns and Yet Offers A Message of Hope.
Yes, I'd like the check now, please. Make it out to "Khaleel Mohammed." That's right -- "Khaleel" and not "Khalil." Thank you.
Posted by: Hugh at October 1, 2008 9:13 AM
Straw Men 101: When the Spencer you wish you could debate does not exist, invent him.
Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 1, 2008 9:18 AM
Mr Spencer,
End this once and for all and challenge him OPENLY to debate.
Posted by: Axel Foley at October 1, 2008 9:26 AM
"Satanic." "Ignoramus." "Bigotry." "Crusader." Khaleel Mohammed's frenzied name-calling..."
Yeah, he's a real name-caller, isn't he? So much for the "religion of peace!"
Also, he thinks "Crusader" is an insult! Thanks for the compliment, Satanist Mohammed!
at October 1, 2008 9:29 AM
Axel Foley:
End this once and for all and challenge him OPENLY to debate.
I did already, for pete's sake:
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.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022881.php
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at October 1, 2008 9:31 AM
Khaleel Mohammed's a name-calling coward, that's clear.
Afraid to openly debate Robert Spencer!
Posted by: darcy at October 1, 2008 9:35 AM
Damnnnnn, Spencer just OWNED khaleel mohammed, lol. What a great way to start my morning!
Posted by: Matt at October 1, 2008 9:37 AM
Do ya think 'ol Lyin' "al-taqiyya" Khaleel ever takes a gander at JW?
Posted by: darcy at October 1, 2008 9:41 AM
WWJD Khaleel Mohammed?
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."
John 10:1
"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep."
John 10:7
Jesus would call Islam a religion of thieves and robbers Mr.Mohammed.
Posted by: SoteriA at October 1, 2008 9:45 AM
He - nor anyone else like him - will EVER accept the challenge to debate because they know that the facts are on your side. So they resort to name calling instead
Posted by: Axel Foley at October 1, 2008 9:45 AM
The "marriage" to his adopted son's wife is still creepy even if he was not his natural son.
He saw a woman that looked better than what he possessed, so he took her too. The "prophet" got the best looking babes.
at October 1, 2008 10:14 AM
BTW, am I a part of "Spencer's Satanic Cabal"?
Good name for a band.
at October 1, 2008 10:17 AM
What would Jesus do?
Matthew 7:15-20 says it all:
15(A) "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are(B) ravenous wolves. 16You will recognize them(C) by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17So,(D) every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19(E) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus you will recognize them(F) by their fruits.
I believe Jesus was specifically warning about Mohammed and his followers in this passage, so I guess Jesus would call Mo out for what he is: a false prophet, and his followers the bad fruit!!
Posted by: mepeteart at October 1, 2008 10:36 AM
When I hear folks like this, I can hear them whispering in the background as they talk "Who ya going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" Anybody with any sense doesn't need Robert to understand the reality of islam. All one needs is to watch what is done in the name of islam, not just the violent acts but also the legal terrorism used to silence criticism, and to listen to the deafening silence of muslims about the violence done in islam's name. Of course most liberals will have to watch a daughter being stoned or beheaded to wake up.
Posted by: Rick at October 1, 2008 10:36 AM
With a name like "Khaleel Mohammed" maybe he feels picked on, sort of like the kid with the name "Percy" who keeps getting beat up by "Butch" (no offence to any "Percy's" out there).
I wonder, are there any apostates with "Mohammed" in there names?
Posted by: Eastview at October 1, 2008 10:39 AM
It is certainly valid to argue if Robert Spencer is a scholar, but it is irrelvant for this discussion. After all Muslims also defame more conventional Western scholars such as Patricia Crone, who study the early Islamic world based on both Islamic and non-Islamic documents.
His books are aimed at a general audience, not only schoars. Robert Spencer is defending a specific point of view, the viewpoint of Western Civilization. That doesn't make his discussion invalid, after all in college debating it is the job of the opponent to make the opposite case. Khaleel Mohammed uses insults as his debating tactic. It is a very good tactic, if you are five years old.
I've read the discussion in question and Spencer gives a reasonable careful account of the issue, enough that someone like myself can understand why a Muslim might come to one conclusion and a non-Muslim might not.
Name calling is certainly not the solution.
Posted by: Jerry M at October 1, 2008 10:52 AM
"Spencer and his satanic cabal."
Robert, does this make me one of your evil minions? Is there, like, an ID card and membership pin?
Seriously, Khaleel Mohammed is relying on his audience's ignorance of the Qur'an. Mohammed DOES marry his daughter-in-law. In fact, to this day, adoption is not practiced by Muslims.
Posted by: tanstaafl at October 1, 2008 11:08 AM
"I wonder, are there any apostates with "Mohammed" in their names?"
Posted by: Eastview
Note to self: read Preview before hitting Post button...
Posted by: Eastview at October 1, 2008 11:13 AM
Robert,
You want him to tell the truth? Next thing you know, you'll be asking him to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah by name and you know he already said he is against any killing of "innocents."
It is amazing to me how these Muslim apologists all seem to be working from the same playbook. Their responses and accusations are so predictable. If only our leaders could look at history and Islamic texts, they might have some idea how best to shape American foreign policy and protect infidels. Innovators, the Muslims aren't...well, except maybe when it comes to hijackings and explosions.
Posted by: 4infidels at October 1, 2008 12:02 PM
I can't help it...I laughed when I read the article.
I think it's time for a Mark levin quote:
'Get off the phone, you big dope'....
Posted by: duh_swami at October 1, 2008 12:09 PM
Spencer seeks to hoodwink his readers by talking of Jihad being war...and that idea, rather obviously, is not accepted by scholars of Islam (Muslim and non-Muslim).
That this idea isn't accepted by the scholars of Islam is meaningless when it IS accepted and admired and worshipped by the PRACTITIONERS of Islam.
Posted by: PMK at October 1, 2008 12:10 PM
I'm sure that most of the commenters here do their own research above and beyond what Robert Spencer reflects so they can give testimonial to what is truthfully being said here as well as validate Robert's own scholarship on Islamic research.
Being able to quote specific surahs, and hadiths certainly gives evidence to what the truths really are.
In a debate would we see that usual default or lame knee jerk defensive reaction from Professor Khaleel Mohammed that says; "You have to able to read and understand Arabic to quote the Quran and the haditha". ---The answer of course being that nearly 85 Pct. of Muslims across the world do not speak Arabic-- thus they must all be misunderstanders of the so-called Religion of peace.
Posted by: Mackie at October 1, 2008 12:36 PM
Professor Khaleel Mohammed that says; "You have to able to read and understand Arabic to quote the Quran and the haditha".
This is because Allah built in mystical and hidden meanings into the Quran that only those reading and 'understanding' in Arabic are privy to.
You just don't get those lofty levels of mystical understanding in English or other non Arabic language.
Just exactly what are those lofty mystical revelations in Arabic, no one seems to know.
Would that mean that all Qurans in English are useless? Why do some muslim groups give them to infidels, and muslims alike? Why are they printed in English at all? Is that un-islamic? Haram?
The real answer is that there is nothing mystical about it in any language. Arabic just has a nice roll to it like Gregorian chants...It's fine to listen to the tune if it has no lyrics.
As soon as you add lyrics you have a message. The message of the Quran is the same in every, or any language...'Allah is in charge and does not tolerate opposition'.
I don't know that song, but if someone can sing a few bars, I will try to hum along...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 1, 2008 1:11 PM
I feel like a Sophomore on the school yard, as a fight is brewing between two Seniors. I want to be there to watch and talk crap. Oh, Oh Khaleel Mohammed you left out a few insults! "Satanic." "Ignoramus." "Bigotry." "Crusader." you should add "racist, "islamophobe", and the ever popular, "Nazi". No thanks needed, as I'm sure these will surely fill the void left by your arguments.
Posted by: ethoman at October 1, 2008 1:16 PM
Insisting that understanding the "insights" of the Qur'an requires knowledge of Arabic is a bit like insisting that to understand the truth of the Pythagorean theorem requires knowing Greek. Any universal religious insight worthy of the name should be independent of the language in which it is expressed.
Posted by: Eastview at October 1, 2008 1:19 PM
Posted by: Eastview at October 1, 2008 1:19 PM
Excellent point there, but in Dr. Mohammed's estimation, once you understand arabic, your probably already a Muslim and therefore in on the big lie.
I read Dr. Mohammeds's rant on TAM and it appears that they care as little for proof-reading as they do the truth at that site.
It was an overly long response to say simply that he refuses to debate Robert. If Spencer knows not of the subject matter, as Khaleel maintains, most opponents would be champing at the bit to get at them.
Ironicly, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Posted by: awake at October 1, 2008 1:29 PM
Khaleel states: "Since you are such an upstanding crusader, I wonder: what would Jesus do in this situation?"
Of course he had to throw that one in there: WWJD?
Goes to show what Khaleel knows about Jesus - not much, obviously!
Jesus confronted and exposed false teachers and false religions, which is what I think Robert is attempting to do when he tells The Truth about Muhammad.
at October 1, 2008 1:35 PM
What would Jesus do?
Expose lier's as lier's in front of big crowds.
I'm sure Jesus will answer those questions when he gets back.
Debating an accomplished lier about their lying. In front of a crowd who enjoy hearing Lier's, lie.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 1, 2008 2:02 PM
The answer of course being that nearly 85 Pct. of Muslims across the world do not speak Arabic-- thus they must all be misunderstanders of the so-called Religion of peace.
Posted by: Mackie
What was the story? Some people who'd recited the koran in Arabic all their lives were shown a translation and were horrified to learn what it actually said.
Posted by: PMK at October 1, 2008 3:24 PM
Robert,
You want him to tell the truth? Next thing you know, you'll be asking him to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah by name and you know he already said he is against any killing of "innocents."
Posted by: 4infidels
I could supply his response myself. NO ONE is innocent unless they are a Muslim. Every non Muslim resisting Islam is guilty of rebellion against Allah and their death at the hands of Jihadists are glazed over with some Taqiyya frosting.
Posted by: SoteriA at October 1, 2008 3:46 PM
Its not for him to invoke Jesus. Or, as they always do, blame the Jews, or scream "but the Jooozzzz do it toooo". Or "Muslims are the new jews"- they're not.
Muhammedans have to prove that Islam can stand on its own merit. But they can't. Theirs is a belief-system that's built on lies and hatred of the other, so once you take that away from them there's nothing left.
Get a life, Khaleel!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 1, 2008 4:20 PM
We should ship back these lying SOB from our shores, that would end a great deal of unwarranted discussions about Mohd. and his nonsense.
Cowboy
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 1, 2008 5:54 PM
Kahleel Mohammed writes, "Allah here emphasizes that an adopted son cannot be a true son, and so by extension Zaynab was never really Muhammad’s daughter-in-law at all, and there is no cause for scandal."
HOW CONVENIENT!
Kahleel Mohammed is blind, as are all Muslims who refuse to see what Muhammed really was.
Posted by: TS at October 1, 2008 8:52 PM
Newsflash, Khaleel - There is no "Allah."
Posted by: darcy at October 1, 2008 11:13 PM
Jesus would continue on with his crusade telling the truth. Problem is, Jesus wasn't around during MO's time...but he did say, beware of false prophets. Khaleel Mohammed, understand?
Posted by: herself at October 2, 2008 7:39 AM
Khaleel Mohammed, trying to stifle free speech, isn't working...all it does is make us more determined.
Posted by: herself at October 2, 2008 7:43 AM
Testing...an abbreviated version of my (attempted) post. (My first one didn't get through, apparently for a technical reason of some sort, and the other
1. Khaleel demonizes critics (see "satanic") while complaining about being demonized.
2. Khaleel is unclear about jihad, claiming that jihad can involve defensive warfare, then claiming that Spencer is hoodwinking people by claiming that jihad involves warfare.
3. Regarding the Zaynab-as-daughter-in-law issue, she was a daughter-in-law in the eyes of the Medinans at the time, until Muhammad changed the rules regarding adoption and marriage. In any case, the JW site's author in question referred to Zaynab as "former daughter in law," so I don't see legitimate reasons for Khaleel to make a fuss over this phrasing.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at October 2, 2008 8:03 PM
(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.)