They lie.

Robert, you rock!

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 8, 2008 9:57 PM

Just curious as to why there is not an apostate on this list?

Is it that they are respected as knowing to much of what Islam is all about since they were former Muslims?

One of the toughest critics I have seen on Islam is the Reverend John Hagee from San Antonio.

Posted by: Mackie at October 8, 2008 10:09 PM

Well done Robert!

Posted by: Zorro at October 8, 2008 10:09 PM

Did they ever answer the question of whether or not the "phobia" is warranted? Of course not. How silly of me.

Posted by: PRCalDude at October 8, 2008 10:11 PM

Smearcaster... Will Fender sue?

Posted by: MarisolJW at October 8, 2008 10:24 PM

What an honor to be on this list! Well done, Robert and here is hoping you will be on their crack pot list for years to come. If they ever came to Jihad/Dhimmi Watch they would not believe the true evidence anyway. They are liars and cowards, left wing nuts of the worst kind. It is their type that is selling this country down the drain to europistan style socialism where "all faiths and diverse backgrounds are welcome." Even something as hate filled and evil as islam!

Posted by: PatriotUSA at October 8, 2008 10:31 PM

Gosh - you'd think they put up a list of the 12, I don't know, most wanted terrorists or something. I guess that's what those who don't know better are supposed to think.

What does their list have to do with fairness or accuracy?

Posted by: charlie at October 8, 2008 10:34 PM

These ignorant, bleeding-heart, left-wing useful idiots deserve to burn in islamic hell with their equally worthless "sources".

So all it takes to have your name and reputation impugned by a bunch of self-appointed, irrelevant attack dogs is for them to contact your avowed enemies and print all the lies and slander they regurgitate?! Can you sue them?

Posted by: Susanp at October 8, 2008 10:36 PM

I have taken a moment to read each of the 12 comments attributed to this esteem group and agree with everything said that was attributed to them.

I would love to receive such an honor as this. I think each one should be given a trophy or at the least get recommended for a Nobel Prize in their efforts to expose the truth about Islam among the dhimmi world.

Posted by: Mackie at October 8, 2008 10:37 PM

I was so angry I forgot to mention that Hannity and O'Reilly should hardly be on this list. They both continue to parrot the hackneyed mantra "islam has been hijacked by a few extremists." The people responsible for this travesty don't seem to understand that "islamophobia" is a contrived and useless word that means NOTHING!

They could have used their time and resources to expose the deadly threat of jihad and sharia in the U.S. instead of trying to besmirch those who work tirelessly to warn the American people. What jerks!

Posted by: Susanp at October 8, 2008 10:44 PM

Congratulations, Robert! And such esteemed company, too.
Personally I will always be indebted to you for being the first and best source I found for giving me the information I needed to back up my positions against the growing menace of radical Islam. You have the heart of a lion and you cannot possibly know the impact of the important work that you do, in the face of what must be unimaginable difficulties. History will remember your work.

We are all keepers of the flame here. Liberty, I mean.

Posted by: JohnAdams at October 8, 2008 10:47 PM

Spencer, Horowitz and Steyn are three of the most impressive people on planet earth as far as I'm concerned. Malkin, Schlussel, Emerson and Pipes are impressive in their own right.

...and for all his buffoonery - like using the word "dopey" to describe policies he doesn't like, Bill O'Reilly deserves great credit for putting Jessica's Law on the books in over 40 states, for outing Sami Al Arian when the Feds were asleep, and for putting issues like border security and illegal immigration on the front-burner when most of the media preferred not to deal with it.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 8, 2008 10:49 PM

That's one wicked graphic, Darth Batman. You and your homie peeps ought to get a band going and make some T-shirts and sell them the way Shamnesty International does.

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at October 8, 2008 10:50 PM

I'm happy Robert Made the list, but I'm also kind of surprised that Ann Coulter did not. Wasn't she the one who said "We should invade their lands, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity?"

Posted by: damien at October 8, 2008 11:21 PM

Did they ever answer the question of whether or not the "phobia" is warranted? Of course not. How silly of me.

Posted by: PRCalDude

But if it was warranted then it wouldn't be a phobia.

Posted by: PMK at October 8, 2008 11:21 PM

They could have used their time and resources to expose the deadly threat of jihad and sharia in the U.S. instead of trying to besmirch those who work tirelessly to warn the American people. What jerks!

Posted by: Susanp

Hannity was interviewing Jerome Corsi after the man was allowed to leave Kenya. I don't know if that was only because Corsi was also anti-Obama. Obama is definitely a sharia threat, whether or not he ever set foot in a madrassah.
Is Hannity waking up to the jihad or is merely election politics? I don't know since I stopped watching or listening to Hannity long ago. I turned on the radio only after reading that Corsi would be a guest.

Posted by: PMK at October 8, 2008 11:28 PM

Who are twelve people I'd like to have over for dinner?

Look at the picture.

Posted by: Winged_Hussar at October 8, 2008 11:46 PM

What an honor to be on this list! Well done, Robert and here is hoping you will be on their crack pot list for years to come. If they ever came to Jihad/Dhimmi Watch they would not believe the true evidence anyway. They are liars and cowards, left wing nuts of the worst kind. It is their type that is selling this country down the drain to europistan style socialism where "all faiths and diverse backgrounds are welcome." Even something as hate-filled and evil as islam!

Posted by: PatriotUSA at October 8, 2008 10:31 PM

May I just say...DITTO!

Posted by: darcy at October 8, 2008 11:55 PM

a true honor! congratulations!

Posted by: kyros at October 8, 2008 11:59 PM

Now I have a new ambition. . .

Posted by: Bigshaker at October 9, 2008 12:04 AM

Glenn "I've read the Qur'an" Beck?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 9, 2008 12:13 AM

Meanwhile, the Deadly Jihad Attacks Counter has topped a dirty dozen-thousand.

Posted by: jeffalbertson at October 9, 2008 12:14 AM

Just reading through their PDF demonstrates an overwhelming ignorance of Islam giving into the notion that it is just simply a religion and not having a clue that it is almost a complete totalitarian political system with it sharia law.

There exists only this nonstop shallow form of non substantive reporting about statements or a few sentences written by each one of the so-called dirty dozen referred to as Muslim bashers that fails to address not a single specific reason as to why us proud Islamophobes have reached some of are conclusions.

These shallow people never take the time for one moment to see why the 12 reach these conclusions.They spend more time in the Pdf criticizing Christians and Jews and mention only Al Qeada and the Muslim Brotherhood, never mind Hezbollah,Hamas, Abu Sayaf and 35 more Islamic terrorist groups. In fact if we mentioned some of them we would probably get a-- HUH?

I still find it extremely interesting that they are not willing to add former Muslims to their list of smearcasters, ----why is that? why don't you add Ayaan Hirsi, or Brigette Gabriel,or Wafi Sultan, to your list? How about Ibn Warraq or Serge Trifkovic. Then move over to Europe and attack Bat Yeor,or Geert Wilders, or Oriana Fallici God rest her soul. .

Robert:

Are you really stirring us away from what is the proper interpretation of the quran as noted in the Pdf article?

Posted by: Mackie at October 9, 2008 12:29 AM

Bostom's nose must be out of joint being left off the list like that.... if this thing is awarded annually he can always hope for next year, I guess.

Posted by: Family Values at October 9, 2008 12:58 AM

Mackie,

Ali Sina, Amil imani would also be good to add to list.

Moslems who are so called moslem bashers.

Posted by: greaticon at October 9, 2008 1:27 AM

Congratulations Robert. It is indeed an honor.

And as I say on my website, it isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.

We should never fear being labeled an “Islamophobe.” Winston Churchill was once accused of being a “Naziphobe.”

Posted by: horselady at October 9, 2008 1:34 AM

How do I get on this list?

Posted by: SeifulKaffir at October 9, 2008 1:52 AM

They couldn't put apostates on the list because they have inside information.

Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and company would have to be on a list of "ex-Islamic Islamophobes"

Posted by: Dsinc at October 9, 2008 2:24 AM

I mean, what do you call an Islamophobe who knows what he/she is talking about.

Posted by: Dsinc at October 9, 2008 2:29 AM

ONLY TWELVE???

Better GET BUSY!!!

Posted by: desert dweller at October 9, 2008 2:33 AM

Keep fighting!

Do not be afraid for bullshit blabla.

Posted by: Coaltaxopeuh at October 9, 2008 2:40 AM

Am I living in a Twilight Zone episode?

How is making truthful statements coming straight from the Koran and Hadith "Islamophobia"? Sometimes I want to just stand here and beat my head against the wall.

I, too, was once completely ignorant about Islam. I saw how devoted Muslims were praying 5 times a day and fasting and wanted to learn about this great religion. (Post 9/11 with all the "religion of peace" declarations of course) So I got a copy of the Qu'ran and read it. But I had heard about the whole 9 year old Aisha thing and was looking for answers and that was not in the Qu'ran?? So I researched and learned about the Hadith. And then got a digital copy of al-Bukharai and read parts of it (it is quite extensive). And then learned about The Reliance of the Traveler. Joy! A manual of Islamic Law comprised of the scholarship of hundreds of years of Islamic scholars on the Qu'ran and Hadith... and then I learned so much more with research.. about how the Qu'ran is not arranged chronologically, abrogation, etc, etc.

And now I am here. I am not a rocket scientist. I have a decent, average IQ. Brilliance is not required to understand this. I was all ready to make myself into an Islamic apologist. But then I actually learned about Islam. Will no one else? (except the 0.00001% of the population that is here of course).

Are we doomed?

Posted by: ConservativeLiberal at October 9, 2008 2:42 AM

Am I living in a Twilight Zone episode?

How is making truthful statements coming straight from the Koran and Hadith "Islamophobia"? Sometimes I want to just stand here and beat my head against the wall.

I, too, was once completely ignorant about Islam. I saw how devoted Muslims were praying 5 times a day and fasting and wanted to learn about this great religion. (Post 9/11 with all the "religion of peace" declarations of course) So I got a copy of the Qu'ran and read it. But I had heard about the whole 9 year old Aisha thing and was looking for answers and that was not in the Qu'ran?? So I researched and learned about the Hadith. And then got a digital copy of al-Bukharai and read parts of it (it is quite extensive). And then learned about The Reliance of the Traveler. Joy! A manual of Islamic Law comprised of the scholarship of hundreds of years of Islamic scholars on the Qu'ran and Hadith... and then I learned so much more with research.. about how the Qu'ran is not arranged chronologically, abrogation, etc, etc.

And now I am here. I am not a rocket scientist. I have a decent, average IQ. Brilliance is not required to understand this. I was all ready to make myself into an Islamic apologist. But then I actually learned about Islam. Will no one else? (except the 0.00001% of the population that is here of course).

Are we doomed?

Posted by: ConservativeLiberal at October 9, 2008 2:43 AM

Hmmm... I see now how it is so easy for people to post their comments multiple times when faced with the Eternal Hourglass of Doom. Sorry.

Posted by: ConservativeLiberal at October 9, 2008 2:45 AM

Remember. in islam it doesn't have to be false to be slander. Anything that "hurts the feelings" or insults islam, no matter how true, is islamophobia.

Posted by: CGW at October 9, 2008 3:24 AM

I have been called worse, but I have also been called an islamophobe. I use their own koran and hadiths in a forum that I blog and they call me a bad Christian, a bad Catholic, a bad blah blah blah. They tell me that I bash them, they tell me that I am hateful, they tell me that I should go and seek out an imam, an ayatollah, they have reported me, they have done a lot to me - and I am still unscathed. In fact, when I get these reactions from muslims - I figure I am doing something right. They don't like it when their prostylitizing (spelling might be wrong) gets interrupted.

don't get me wrong when it first happened to me it took me aback. But, I am more like a bull dog than not so just kept up and realized after reading some of the trials and tribulations of some notables like Mr. Spencer, and also Brigette Gabriel, that this is the norm with muslims.

Unlike the muslims, I encourage people to read read read... And give them a bounty of websites of which jihadwatch.org is always one of the many that I encourage people to read. I have to cut/paste from them when I deal with muslims because once they see jihadwatch, or dhimmiwatch, they behave as the Witch of the West reacted when Dorothy threw water on them.... (we need laughing icons!!). They behave very poorly - we are supposed to read their stuff but they do not extend the same courtesy.

Posted by: R_not at October 9, 2008 3:51 AM

I just noticed Bill O'Reilly on the list. Of all the people that has given them plenty of time to lie to us - it has been him. He has never countered their deception!

Posted by: R_not at October 9, 2008 3:53 AM

ConservativeLiberal, no we are not doomed. We just can never go back to sleep again though. They are in an eternal war so that means we are too.

Posted by: R_not at October 9, 2008 4:02 AM

I should add to that last post this sentence:

But, we can fight with words and laws now.

Posted by: R_not at October 9, 2008 4:03 AM

I have to say, these monikers you get stuck with are _neat_.

I still maintain you should use that "Darth Spencer" as your author's photo.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at October 9, 2008 5:11 AM

"These shallow people never take the time for one moment to see why the 12 reach these conclusions."

Their notion of "accuracy and fairness in reporting" is roughly comparable to the concept of "truth" in the good old Pravda - reporting is "fair" and "accurate" if and only if it advances their leftist agenda. Some things never change on the far left.

By the way, would someone be so kind as to tell me how to properly use the quote function on this board? Thank you in advance!

Posted by: plumberger at October 9, 2008 5:35 AM

Look's like a team fit to run a country!

Posted by: Stefcho at October 9, 2008 5:43 AM

When is the Movie being released?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 9, 2008 7:02 AM

When are the t-shirts coming out?

Mr. Spencer, you are in good company. As for the
"Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting" crowd, well let's just say there isn't much of that in the MSM these days.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at October 9, 2008 7:13 AM

It is difficult for a person, who was raised with common sense, that has has used common sense all his life, and currently lives in an invironment of common sense,...it is difficult for that person to see where these odd people are coming from, with this claim of "islamophobia" against all these fine people.

That is unless these odd people who run "FAIR" are...

---Islamic propagandists
---American hating socialists
---Rebellious Adolescents
---Jihadists
---Morons
---Idiots
---Mentally ill
---Or most of the above

Robert, You do a great job.

Posted by: Spot on at October 9, 2008 8:05 AM

I would have taken exception to some of the people on this list except recently I heard a tirade by Bill O'Reilly on jihadists which sounded word for word like vintagevRobert Spencer. I was shocked, but it reminded me of the sign on Ronald Reagan's desk: "There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." Once ideas and perspectives are out there, if they are worthwhile, they take on a life of their own.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 9, 2008 8:15 AM

As Anne said, O'Reilly recently went on a tirade using the phrase jihadist. Also, Beck did have Wilders on his show recently although the former two and a guy like Hannity ar far from true Islamophobes in my book.

Robert, on the otherhand, should wear that like a badge of honor.

Posted by: awake at October 9, 2008 8:30 AM

"I still find it extremely interesting that they are not willing to add former Muslims to their list of smearcasters, ----why is that? why don't you add Ayaan Hirsi, or Brigette Gabriel,or Wafi Sultan, to your list?" --Mackie

Brigitte Gabriel is a Lebanese Christian.

Both Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan are ex-Muslims, and I believe both are atheists, now. Whereas former Egyptian Muslim Nonie Darwish embraced Christianity.

Yes, "Badge of Honor," RS et al.

Also, that Churchill was once labelled a "Naziphobe" is good info to have. Anyone know more about that? Who did the labelling, and when?

Posted by: darcy at October 9, 2008 9:03 AM

From the FAIR site:

"Jeff Cohen founded FAIR in 1986. He served as the group's executive director for a number of years, and later on its board of directors. Upon taking a full time job with MSNBC in May 2002, Cohen stepped down from FAIR's board."

MSNBC?

There really is no need to read further.

Posted by: awake at October 9, 2008 10:04 AM

Me too, please add me to the list of honor, the Islamophobes or the American Islamophobes.

What do I have to do to join the list of honor?

Maybe this will help:

I believe that the Koran is indoctrination manual to kill all infidels and especially the Americans who are envied for their millions of contributions to the world. More than 90 percent of what the world uses in an American invention and contribution to the world.

Everything in a Mosque except the wall and the carpet is an American invention (the light bulb, the light switch, the heater, the air conditioner, the microphone, the amplifier, the loud speaker, the elevator, the cameras, the screens, the telephones, the cell phones, the computer, the printer, the network, the wireless network, and the list goes on and on. These American innovations and inventions are inside every mosque in the world. If you remove the American inventions from a mosque you would be left with wall, carpet, windows and doors.

Americans have penetrated the hearts and souls of every mosque in the world.

Now imagine if a mosque is nothing without the American ingenuity. The Islamic world is even more dependent on the American ingenuity. American ingenuity has penetrated deep into the hearts, the souls and the lives of every Muslim.

Because we were so successful in penetrating so deep into the lives of every Muslim instead of being grateful to us, they hate us. Talk about gracious recipients of everything we have offered them.

Because they are extremely jealous of the American superiority over Islam they want to kill us.

I am a proud Islamophobe; in fact we are all proud Islamophobes.

We are Islamophobes because they hate us.
We are Islamophobes because they want to kill us.
We are Islamophobes because they bomb our cities.
We are Islamophobes because they are very jealous of our greater than God's accomplishments.
We are Islamophobes because they carried the 911 attack.
We are Islamophobes because they anything but peaceful.
We are Islamophobes because we are on top of their list of targeted terrorism.
We are Islamophobes because we are sick and tired of Islam.
We are Islamophobes because we cannot stand idiots.
We are Islamophobes because we are afraid of the worthless Islams that want to kill themselves to hurt us.
We are Islamophobes because they don't value life.
We are Islamophobes because we love life to the point where we are looking to double life expectancy.

Finally, we are Islamophobes because we love this label. Who in his/her right mind would not want to be Islamophobe?

Today, Americans are divided between Islamophobes and Islamokissassers.

Posted by: American at October 9, 2008 10:25 AM

To all those who rail against Mr. Spencer and deride him for nothing more than exposing islam for what it is:

You label him an islamophobe when, in reality, Mr. Robert Spencer is an islamoprobe.

Yes he's a probe and you appear to dislike intensely the exposure of facts about islam that he tirelessly uncovers for our examination; doing just what a quality probe should do.

Mr. Spencer shines a light on those who would attempt to impose their will upon us under the cover of ignorance and placation. We applaud and admire him. You fear and loathe him.

But I do not think you loathe him as intensely as you fear what lies in the unexposed underbelly of islam. Your embarassment resulting from the information he reveals is palpable.

Your embarassment manifests itself in the vindictives you spew, of which I have read many, rather than the thoughtful, rational debates you offer; of which I have found none....so far. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Mr. Spencer, or one of you, can direct me to a thoughtful and rational debate that I may have somehow overlooked on this site. That would be much appreciated.

Posted by: ibcdc at October 9, 2008 10:40 AM

The tabloid mentality...
I wonder how many people work at the 'Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting', office...one? Two? Many?

It was someones idea to create that logo, and it was someones idea which people to put on it.

I would like to ask the one or two, teeny minority, of creative leftists just why they included some people and omitted others.
Possibly they had a list of many, and the twelve
used were voted for by the office staff, in a process of condensation.

It's a form of mental alchemy...to reduce the evil to it's most concentrated form, as represented by the reprehensible twelve.

This is an act of black magick...to conjure up evil, and associate the images of enemies with it, whom the black magician hopes to make into victims. But leftist black magicians are novices, leaving themselves wide open for all kinds of karmic mishaps. In the end, they are their own worse enemies...Possessed by the demons they themselves created.

One good way to combat this is to view the antics
of the poisonous left as amusing and silly.
(Unless they start throwing furniture).

Posted by: duh_swami at October 9, 2008 10:42 AM

Norman Solomon is the man behind FAIR and its basically a one man show to a large extent. He is also your classic rabid liberal, he attacks just about anyone who doesn't agree with his positions.

BTW Solomon/FAIR also attacked the Dilbert comic strip several times because he didn't like Dilbert's political orientation.

That alone ought to tell you want kind of nut job Solomon is.

He only deserves mockery.

Posted by: waltc at October 9, 2008 11:37 AM

When quoting the section on Spencer in the FAIR report, Spencer says that the main rap FAIR has is that he is "selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries."

In his post, Spencer quotes the FAIR report as saying that Spencer "selectively [ignores] inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries." In response the this charge, Spencer says, “of course no examples are produced, and none can be.”

The FAIR report, however, says that Spencer promotes “a Puffin English-language version of the Quran that contains no explanatory commentary as superior to versions which include ‘many thousands of footnotes evaluating 14 centuries of interpretative tradition’ and ‘the wealth of classical Islamic scholarship on both the inner and outer meaning of the Quran and on the hadith that reflect this wisdom.’” The interior quotes from the FAIR report refer to this paper by Crain:

theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/fascist_islamophobia_a_case_study_in_totalitarian_demonization/

When the FAIR report quotes Crane as mentioning a superior version of the Quran which contains “many thousands of footnotes evaluating 14 centuries of interpretative tradition,” Crain is speaking of Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation and commentary titled “The Meaning Of The Holy Quran.” FAIR quotes Spencer as saying that, unlike Christianity, which has a long history of interpretation of the Bible, “there is no comparable interpretative tradition” in Islam. FAIR points out that this is false, and that Yusuf Ali’s translation details 14 centuries of interpretive tradition in his thousands of footnotes. When the FAIR report quotes Crane as mentioning a version of the Quran that contains a “wealth of classical Islamic scholarship on both the inner and outer meaning of the Quran and on the hadith that reflect this wisdom,” Crane is speaking of Muhammad Asad’s translation titled “The Message of the Qur'an.”

So when Spencer says that “no examples are produced” of him “selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries” and that “none can be,” he is wrong. The FAIR paper quotes excerpts from a paper that quotes two examples.

Posted by: dave742 at October 9, 2008 12:11 PM

Yes. Robert keep it up. I come from a muslim background but still support you in highlighting this totalitarian aspect of Islam which is mainstream and opposed to the democratic principles of equality. I would add though that it is a gigantic task which needs to be taken seriously by every person who believes in the dignity of all human beings.

Posted by: goldenrule at October 9, 2008 1:10 PM

'FAIR' doesn't have a clue on what Islamophobic is or isn't. Even going by contemporary definitions of the term, Hannity, O'Reilly, Emerson and Beck don't belong on that list. If a strict definition was used as to those who associate Islam itself (as opposed to Islamo-Fascism) with terror, then only Spencer and Sclussel belong in that list, with maybe Malkin and Steyn deserving honorable mentions.

Schlussel is the only one in the list who accurately associates Islam as a whole with a whole range of evils - fraud, terror, terror-funding, FGM, et al. As a certified Islamophobe, I'd state that the rest of that bunch are lacking in a big way, with only Spencer coming close.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 9, 2008 1:14 PM

Liberalism truly is a mental disorder. Look at their contributers they are all extreme radical liberals Americans.

Who's Who at FAIR

Development Director: Hilary Goldstein ()
Media Activism & Administration: Peter Hart ()
Shipping/Sales: Sanford Hohauser ()
Managing Editor: Julie Hollar ()
Program Director: Janine Jackson ()
Communications Director: Isabel Macdonald ()
Extra! Editor: Jim Naureckas ()
Senior Analyst: Steve Rendall ()
Extra! Publisher: Deborah Thomas ()

Contributing Writer: Seth Ackerman
Website Contributor: Gabriel W. Voiles ()

Founder: Jeff Cohen

Yes, they are all clueless liberals who do not know the history of Islam or even currents events. I have spent time in a Muslim country and I may go back and in no way has any of this people caused me to hate Muslims, only the radicals who oppress and kill people.

To the clueless libs - have you read any of Spencer's books????

Posted by: eaglecap at October 9, 2008 2:13 PM

Dave742-
Puffin is a children's imprint. Dawood is not a "puffin" translation as you can see at Amazon.com The Koran (Penguin Classics)

Note this from Robert's FAQ on this blog:

Q: Can you recommend a good English translation of the Qur'an?
RS: N. J. Dawood's is the most readable in English. However, most versions do not mark the verse numbers precisely. Some non-Muslims don't like it because he uses "God" for Allah, although since Arabic-speaking Christians use "Allah" for the God of the Bible, and have for over a millennium, this is a problem for poseurs and pseudo-scholars but is not really a serious objection to anyone who knows both languages. Also, many Muslims dislike this translation because Dawood was not a Muslim, and doesn't sugarcoat any of the passages. Two translations by Muslims, those by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, are generally reliable, although both write in a stilted, practically unreadable pseudo-King James Bible English. Of the two, Ali's contains more liberties with the text -- such as adding "(lightly)" to Sura 4:34 after the directive to husbands to beat their disobedient wives. The Arabic doesn't say to beat them lightly, it just says to beat them. Pickthall's is generally accurate.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 9, 2008 2:29 PM

R_not "I just noticed O;Reilly on the list - of all the people that has given them plenty of time to lieto us, it has been him"

CORRECTION!! O'Reilly was quick to lose his temper (!) when interviewing Sami Al Arian about five years ago. He actually yelled at him that he better watch his back 'cuz Americans wouldn't stand for his betrayals!

What happened? Mayhaps a billionaire Arab bought stock in FOX and laid the law down. Neither O'Reilly nor Hannity say much about Jihad now. Were they told to shut up?

Posted by: angryamerican at October 9, 2008 2:32 PM

eaglecap:
"To the clueless libs - have you read any of Spencer's books????"

No, I haven't. Intuitively, it is obvious to me what Spencer's approach is. Demonize the Koran without taking into account any other factors. This can be done quite easily with the bible as well. Probably easier. For this reason, I never had an interest in spending the time doing the research necessary to educate myself on the details.
Now, however, I have become more interested. In my post above, I mentioned two books that Spencer does not address. It is always important to read what an author cannot refute, so I have ordered those two books. I will compare these to Spencer's (I will get Spencer's from the library, because I don't care to give him any of my money), and in several months I think I'll have much more to comment on.

In general, however, I read much material from the right. How many books do you read from the left?

AnneCrockett:
Yes, it looks like Dawwod's Koran translation was published by Penguin, not Puffin. Puffin, however, is part of Penguin, and Dawood has published a work by Puffin:

us.penguingroup.com/static/html/aboutus/youngreaders/puffin.html

puffin.co.uk/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,1000003065,00.html

Regardless, this seems immaterial.

You bring up the fact that Spencer brings up Yusuf Ali. Bringing up an author briefly in the Q and A section of a website is quite different than analyzing a work systematically within a book. Yusuf Ali's translation was brushed off in Spencer's book (probably in much the same way as in the Q and A), and Asad's work was not mentioned at all. So when FAIR says that Spencer "selectively [ignores] inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries," this sounds accurate, and a brief mention in the Q and A section of a website does not change that. I am going to find out why Spencer ignores these works.

Posted by: dave742 at October 9, 2008 2:55 PM

Congratulations! What excellent company you keep.

If Obama is elected, I expect there will be tremendous pressure to shut up critics of Islam.

We should all be prepared for a very rough few years ahead should he win.

Posted by: scott at October 9, 2008 3:31 PM

By the way, would someone be so kind as to tell me how to properly use the quote function on this board? Thank you in advance!
Posted by: plumberger

You mean like this? There are no quick an easy tools that I have found. I just type in the html code.

All of the code letters are delineated with the greater-than and less-than keys. Can't show them because they carry special meaning and won't display. I will substitute { for greater-than and } for less-than.

For italics {i}some text{/i} (the text can be several lines long)
For bold {b}some text{/b}
For blockquot {blockquote}some text{/blockquote}

To make a link
{a href="URL-HERE"}LINKED TEXT HERE{/a}

I am sure there are others. 8^)

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at October 9, 2008 4:02 PM

Concerned Citizen,

"Glenn "I've read the Qur'an" Beck?"

My thoughts exactly! Glenn Beck still thinks Islam has been hijacked by a group of radicals.

C'mon! Glenn Beck an Islamophobe? Seriously?

BTW - Congratulations go out to Robert Spencer on this most auspicious and momentous occasion.

Cheers

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at October 9, 2008 5:03 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

You wrote "Anyway, the main rap is that I am "selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries." Of course no examples are produced, and none can be."

I think we both understand this only applies to certain venues...it does not apply to what you and I exchange, does it?

Need I write more?

Peace, Truth, and Proof...a good trio.

Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 9, 2008 5:31 PM

You say

"...have you read any of Spencer's books????"
No, I haven't.

Then you say

Yusuf Ali's translation was brushed off in Spencer's book (probably in much the same way as in the Q and A), and Asad's work was not mentioned at all.

How do you know?

As for your saying calling Penguin books Puffin books is not important, I cannot imagine how suggesting that someone relies on juvenile literature for a source is no big deal.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 9, 2008 5:42 PM

No, I haven't. Intuitively, it is obvious to me what Spencer's approach is. Demonize the Koran without taking into account any other factors. This can be done quite easily with the bible as well. Probably easier. For this reason, I never had an interest in spending the time doing the research necessary to educate myself on the details.

I suggest you do otherwise whatever you say here it mere conjecture.

Demonize- I have read all of his books and many other sources about the Islamic conquest; both primary and secodary. I have spent time in an Islamic country and in no way has Robert taught me to hate all Muslims or really any. If you really read his material and not act on your emotions then you will see he does set a distinction between moderate Muslims and the radicals and also why so many are silent.

I am half Greek and I know my Byzantine history and yes the centuries of abuse under, suffered by all Balkan people, by the Muslims or what Robert refers to as dhimi status was real. Please do not think it cannot happen again.

Of course to a nice liberal like you western civilization has been so evil to the poor Muslims. I suggest reading;
In Defense of the West by Ibn Warraq
and also google "The Crusades in Context." You might learn something.
Islamic violence has a long history and it cannot all be blamed on America.

I help this helps you see the light!!

Posted by: eaglecap at October 9, 2008 7:19 PM

AnneCrockett:
“How do you know?”

I don’t know. That is why I used the word “probably.” Did you notice that word? I feel that it is highly probable that it is true, however, for a few reasons. First, in the Q and A quote you gave, Spencer was able to brush off a 1700 page book with thousands of references because he used the word “lightly,” which Spencer has an issue with. (It will be interesting for me to see if Yusuf Ali has a reason for using this word which is explained in the interpretive history. Also, I know someone at work that knows Arabic, and I will be able to check the translation directly.) If Spencer can do this so easily on his website, I am doubting that he does much more in his book. I doubt it because Crane says that Spencer “denigrates the Yusuf Ali translation,” in his book and because I have seen Spencer’s writing on his website. Again, I could be wrong, which is why I will read Spencer’s book along with the others. This is much more than anyone else here can possibly do. I would bet my life vs. one dollar that nobody that agrees with Spencer’s views and visits this site has ever read Yusuf Ali or Asad’s books.

“I cannot imagine how suggesting that someone relies on juvenile literature for a source is no big deal.”

It is Dawood who wrote the book “Aladdin and Other Tales from the Arabian Nights.” Either the FAIR article wrote the word “Puffin” in because that is where they saw Dawood’s biography, or it was an intentional dig. If it was an intentional dig, then it wasn’t very nice, but I doubt it would have much of an effect. I had no idea what Puffin was, and I doubt it is common knowledge. I know that a common technique for apologists is to find whatever reason they can to not expose themselves to new information. If you want to use this “Puffin” word to not read the FAIR report or the linked Crane article or other references, that’s fine. I really don’t care.

Eaglecap:
“I suggest reading; In Defense of the West by Ibn Warraq”

I am assuming you mean:

“Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism”

If so, maybe I will. I put it on my wish list. (Again, it’s for a reminder. I get books like this from the library). BTW, since this book is a critique of Said’s “Orientalism,” I wonder if you read that book?

Posted by: dave742 at October 9, 2008 8:47 PM

Gee whiz...these are all my favorite commentators! I guess that makes me an Islamaphobe too. Although I wouldn't call it a "fear" of Islam. I'd call it a compulsion to get the word out about their nasty, destructive intent before they destroy our society. It is a dismay of the ignorance of non-Muslim to the threat Islam poses.

But I feel in good company, indeed.

Posted by: Moochie at October 9, 2008 9:09 PM

Ah "Islamophobe" a cousin to the liberal labels "racist", "nativist" and "xenophobe".

All designed for two things. To silence opposition and debate.

Buts that FAIR for you, insulting people they don't like. But thats normal for them, these are the same people who attacked Scott Adams of Dilbert fame. What a dour lot.

That said, thing I've noticed about groups like FAIR and CAIR is that they run away from debating people like Spencer and other critics of Islam. Especially ex-Muslims. Heaven forbid that facts and history and not agreeing with the CAIR talking points are the order of the day.

You'd think that since they have truth on their side they'd swat Spencer and company down like flies. They don't.

Instead they just lob insults and run away.

Posted by: waltc at October 9, 2008 9:38 PM

I have to admire all the ones who made this list--but Hannity (the plagiarizing pretty boy light weight) and O'Reilly (the self appointed moralist who had to pay off a woman for his lewd behavior) are the most fake--

Robert--takes a back seat to no one in this fight against islamism--and Debbie Schlussel is right there as a no holds barred fighter against the islamists.

To all of you who made the list--BRAVO! We all need to try to get on such a list.

Posted by: BB at October 9, 2008 11:00 PM

"I doubt it because Crane says that Spencer “denigrates the Yusuf Ali translation,” in his book and because I have seen Spencer’s writing on his website. Again, I could be wrong, which is why I will read Spencer’s book along with the others. This is much more than anyone else here can possibly do. I would bet my life vs. one dollar that nobody that agrees with Spencer’s views and visits this site has ever read Yusuf Ali or Asad’s books."
-- from a posting above

Don't be an idiot. Crane, the Crane dont on parle, is a bizarre creature, dissected at this website. His mental state ought to be enough to keep anyone from relying on him. Google his name, and "Jihad Watch" and my name.

As for that little bet -- that "nobody that agrees with Spencer's views and visits this site has ever read Yusuf Ali or Asad's books" -- well, I'll start with myself. I have Yusuf Ali's translation; it was the first one of five I acquired. I have read it. I am familiar with the ways in which it differs from the other translations into English, even if I am not nearly as familiar with all of them as Robert Spencer. You don't understand. This stuff fascinates him. He has been reading, and re-reading it, for more than two decades. Get that through your skull.

As for Asad -- the "revert" Muhammad Asad, ne Leopold Weiss -- I am familiar with him. But I am not the only one. There must be dozens, or even hundreds, among the tens of thousands who visit here, who have looked at, or read, Yusuf Ali's translation, and compared it with others -- synoptically, at the helpful USC website -- put on-line. And they can certainly familiarize themselves with the more-than-slightly-off Leopold Weiss (subsequently "Muhammad Asad"), a sad specimen of a tragico-comic phenomenon you can find out more about by googling "Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome" and "Jihad Watch."

Posted by: Hugh at October 9, 2008 11:53 PM

Speaking of thick skulls: mental gymnastics for some = a hop and a skip for others (it's sort of an inside joke).

Posted by: charlie at October 10, 2008 12:06 AM

Congrats, Your Darthship!

Posted by: John C at October 10, 2008 1:18 AM

Dave, you need to get an education, boy! People on this here site are not your classmates...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2008 5:19 AM

Hugh:
"He has been reading, and re-reading it, for more than two decades."

If he has been reading and re-reading Yusuf Ali's and Asad's work for two decades, can you show me where Spencer addresses over 1,000 pages and thousands of footnotes of interpretive Islamic history, and is then able to conclude that “there is no comparable interpretative tradition” in Islam? Where, and in what book, has he explained his reasoning for being able to make this claim? He must have at least a chapter on this somewhere. Where is it?

Posted by: dave742 at October 10, 2008 8:31 AM

dave742:

Intuitively, it is obvious to me what Spencer's approach is. Demonize the Koran without taking into account any other factors.

Your intuition fails you. If you look into some of the entries of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series, you will see that it is anything but an attempt to "demonize the Koran" -- rather, it is an attempt to show what mainstream Muslim authorities, principally the classic Qur'an commentators Ibn Kathir and the two Jalals (authors of the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, teach about the meaning of the Qur'an.

In it, contrary to Crane's claim, I cite Abdullah Yusuf Ali copiously. Here are the citations:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Abdullah+Yusuf+Ali&as_epq=Blogging+the+Qur%27an&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=jihadwatch.org&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

In it I also cite Muhammad Asad copiously. Here are the citations for that:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Asad&as_epq=Blogging+the+Qur%27an&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=jihadwatch.org&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

You could have done these Google searches yourself, rather than take Crane's false claim at face value.

Why did you do so?

More to come.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 10, 2008 8:44 AM

hugh:
"I have Yusuf Ali's translation; it was the first one of five I acquired...There must be dozens, or even hundreds, among the tens of thousands who visit here, who have looked at, or read, Yusuf Ali's translation, and compared it with others -- synoptically, at the helpful USC website -- put on-line."

I am not talking about simply the translation itself. I am talking about the interpretive history. From what I saw, only the translation is online, not the book. This means nothing. When you say you have Ali's translation, I am assuming you mean the book I mentioned: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran." This book is over 1700 pages, and contains much more than the translation of the text. Since you have it, can you quote the first sentence on page 93?

Posted by: dave742 at October 10, 2008 8:48 AM

dave742:

FAIR points out that this is false, and that Yusuf Ali’s translation details 14 centuries of interpretive tradition in his thousands of footnotes.

You take this claim as true without question, although I believe you acknowledge above that you have not yet read Ali's Qur'an. When you do, I hope that you will note that it is wildly overstated. Ali's thousands of footnotes are anything but the compendium of classic commentary on the Qur'an that Crane and FAIR claim them to be.

Rather, while Ali does often present mainstream and traditional views, his notes are in many cases a modern twentieth-century perspective designed to make various uncomfortable aspects of Islam and Sharia palatable to Westerners. You can discover this for yourself by comparing what Ali says on many key verses with what the classic commentators actually say -- I do this in the Blogging the Qur'an series.

In any case, I invite your skepticism about my work, and am happy to submit it for scrutiny, as I know it will stand up to honest scrutiny. I just hope that one day you will direct the same skepticism to the tendentious claims of Crane and FAIR, and others like them.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 10, 2008 8:50 AM

I did notice you said "probably" and thought about making that very word bold text but decided not to show you up by highlighting it.
I will look for the reviews in the NYT Sunday book section this week that cover what books are probably about. I will start giving A's to third graders who turn in book reports that begin, "I have never read this book but it is probably about..." And I really look forward to getting book of the month club mailings that tell me what the Book of the Month is "probably" about.

As for "14 centuries of interpretive tradition"- Islam as as far as it concerns me is a legal system. I do not care whether my neighbor believes in one god or twenty gods, but I care quite a bit if he wants to implement sharia, and the overwhelming number of Muslims (Sunni Muslims) say that the legal interpretations stop at the tenth century. (The phrase used to describe this is "the gates of ijtihad are closed.")

But if I have understood you correctly, you have not read Yusuf Ali and but know it probably contradicts what is probably in Spencer.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 10, 2008 8:53 AM

I feel bad. I am a chapter leader for ACT! for America - Raleigh Chapter and Brigitte Gabriel, who wrote two fine books on this vile cult and has started ACT for America, has a website American Congress For Truth but is not listed. I guess we must try harder.
You need to read Brigitte Gabriel’s first book, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America then comment. Read her newest book, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.
If you are interested in stopping the “radical” world of Islam, go to ACT for America, then link to your desired state, then to a local chapter. Oh, I am still scratching my head wondering how this is called a religion instead of an oild 7th century cult? When I read the definition of a cult it says, “Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. The spelling c-u-l-t also has at least eight homonym meanings that have confused the public since 1920 onward.” Wikipedia

Posted by: TopAssistant at October 10, 2008 8:55 AM

dave742:

In my post above, I mentioned two books that Spencer does not address. It is always important to read what an author cannot refute, so I have ordered those two books.

I have now demonstrated to you, with abundant evidence, that I "address" both books extensively, and that Crane's claim is therefore false. You apparently didn't check to see if it was true, but simply assumed it was -- although you might also have found, if you had checked, that I have previously demonstrated that Robert Crane has only the most glancing interest in presenting the truth. See these two links, read them carefully, check the evidence for yourself, and tell me if you still think Robert Crane is an honest man:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/017126.php

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/017443.php

But most of all I wanted to address your rhetorical sleight of hand. You jumped from books that "Spencer does not address" immediately to books that Spencer "cannot refute." Yet there is no reason to assume, unless you're an inveterately hostile observer, that the reason why any author doesn't address a book is because he cannot refute it. Even if Crane's claim that I don't address Ali and Asad were true, and I have shown above that it is not, that wouldn't mean that I "cannot refute" what the say.

Why did you make this logical leap?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 10, 2008 8:58 AM

Jihadwatch:
“You could have done these Google searches yourself, rather than take Crane's false claim at face value…Why did you do so?”

I did your searches, but most of what I found is referencing the text of Yusuf’s translation itself. This is not what I was addressing. I am interested in what Yusuf Ali has to say regarding the interpretive history of the Koran, and why, despite this history, you say that “there is no comparable interpretative tradition” in Islam. When I searched your site, and I admit I did not look at every page where they were mentioned, I did not see much where you addressed Yusuf’s interpretive history and explain why it should not be considered. You merely reference the text.

“But most of all I wanted to address your rhetorical sleight of hand…Why did you make this logical leap?”

I am scientist, and when I write an article I will, and must, address every view that conflicts with my own, and must systematically address every point other authors raise. I realize this is not a requirement for writing a book, but I see it done more consistently from those on the left than those on the right. Also, when the subject of a book drifts further and further from mainstream thought, I think the necessity to address other works increases greatly. I think you must admit that your views are not the mainstream, and for your views to be accepted by a rational observer you must confront all the points made by those in the mainstream and show why they are wrong. If this is not done, it makes your argument unconvincing. If you have not addressed the interpretive history at some length, and simply concluded that “there is no comparable interpretative tradition” in Islam, I think there would be an issue.

I wonder about this interpretive history because whenever I see an interpretation on this site that surprises me, I ask two fellow coworkers what the passage means. One is a Shiite from Iran, and the other a Sunni from Bangladesh. The Iranians brother is somewhat of a Koran scholar, so I have a good source for information there. I always seem to get a different answer than what you detail. It seems you are translating the text directly, and Muslims have a long history that supplements the text. A Muslim could analyze the Bible as a text and make Christians look like a psychotic cult. This would probably not be fair. I have read the Bible, and I think it is the most violent, misogynistic, and overall scary book I ever read. Christians themselves, however, are not very scary. There is a difference between what is in the Bible and Christians themselves. There is also a difference between Muslims and what your impression of Muslim might be if you only read the Koran. Muslims are not very scary, either. Actually, the Iranian woman I know makes me wonderful desserts for lunch. I realize there are extremists Muslims. There are extremists Christians as well. There are more extremist Muslims because there are bombs constantly falling on their countries. If someone starts dropping bombs on the US and decides to effect “regime-change” in the US, I would expect the number of extremist Christians to rise dramatically. That’s simply how it works.

“You take this claim as true without question, although I believe you acknowledge above that you have not yet read Ali's Qur'an… I just hope that one day you will direct the same skepticism to the tendentious claims of Crane and FAIR, and others like them.”

I word things in a way that reflect my bias, but I am going to check things out open-mindedly. I always do. For example, I read the book “Who Speaks for Islam,” and thought it was OK, although it was written at a high school level. When I was recently confronted with evidence that Esposito intentionally misled people in his book, I acknowledged it, saying: “I agree with [the poster] and Kramer that Esposito intentionally confused the issue to achieve his desired result. Doing this is despicable.”:

townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/09/15/who_speaks_for_islam?comments=true

I acknowledge when someone on the left does something like this. Strangely, when I point out countless similar examples from those on the right, I hear nothing.

Anyway, this is silly for me to pursue until I have read some more. I will continue to make my comments on more concrete issues until I have.

Annecrocket:
“But if I have understood you correctly, you have not read Yusuf Ali and but know it probably contradicts what is probably in Spencer.”

Yes, I know it contradicts what Spencer says, because even Spencer acknowledges this. I believe that Spencer “probably” does not address much of Yusuf Ali’s interpretive history. I might be wrong, but I would bet that I am right. This is similar to you thinking that Norman Finkelstein “probably” writes in a deceptive manner, even though you might not have actually read his books. It is very hilarious to me that you freak over a stupid word when I am actually read books on the right often, and will read Spencer’s as well. I have seen literally hundreds over posts over the years denigrating authors on the left with every slur imaginable, when not a single one has read the actual book. But I say the word “probably”, and have not read Spencer’s book YET, and you flip out. Very funny.

Posted by: dave742 at October 10, 2008 10:11 AM

I did not realize that questioning you would be considered "freaking out." You drew attention to the word "probably."
I might have an impression about a book before reading it, but I cannot imagine my opinion of a book I have not read should be to be taken seriously.
I cannot imagine posting my uninformed opinions about what is probably in a book on the author's website.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 10, 2008 10:47 AM

AneeCrocket:
"I cannot imagine posting my uninformed opinions about what is probably in a book on the author's website."

My initial post concerned what Spencer said abouts the FAIR report's claim that Spencer "selectively [ignores] inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries." In response to this, spencer said "no examples are produced, and none can be.”
The only point of my post was that two examples were produced, and that Spencer was wrong when he said that "no examples are produced." It's pretty simple. That was my point, and nobody addressed it, including Spencer. Spencer claimed that he does address these sources, but never explained why he said that "no examples are produced." He did not say that "examples are produced, but they are innacurate because...".

After I made this simple point, I started addressing others that addressed me. In the process of addressing others, I started making some comments about material I have not read yet. When someone specifically asked if I read the material, I don't know why it's wrong to answer and say no, even if it is followed with some conjecture.

Posted by: dave742 at October 10, 2008 11:39 AM

"selectively [ignores] inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries." In response to this, spencer said "no examples are produced, and none can be.”

If he does not ignore them (and he does not) then no examples were produced. It was simply a false statement. A true statement would require that Spencer not analyze a commentarty and find it wanting but rather that he ignore it.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 10, 2008 11:57 AM

annecrockett:
As I said, there is a difference between citing a quote from Yusuf Ali's Koran translation and analyzing any part of the thousand plus pages of his work that is apart from the translation itself.

Posted by: dave742 at October 10, 2008 1:05 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

Not to butt in, and might I add in a not too altogether timely manner, I would like to address this comment of yours:

"as I know it will stand up to honest scrutiny. "

You and I both know there are things you do not understand and yet as if it were fact, and I must add quite boldly and firmly you do so, and then when you are proven to be incorrect a convenient retraction occurs and you thereby "sweep behind yourself."

I grant you, there may not be an overt intention to deceive, but it happens to your readership all too often...some who read your material well know this and are quite capable of putting you under "honest scrutiny."

What you need is honest introspection into your true goals and aims. Your Jihad mantra is only a vehicle.

Macarthy had his vehicle as well, and, much like I assume yours will soon, it ran out of fuel as well as credibility with time when reasonable intelligent people held it up to "honest scrutiny."

Good wishes to you and your family,

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 10, 2008 1:52 PM

dave742:

You're a scientist? Really?

You say:

I am interested in what Yusuf Ali has to say regarding the interpretive history of the Koran, and why, despite this history, you say that “there is no comparable interpretative tradition” in Islam."

You base this on Crane. But in fact if you had gone back to my statement and Crane's as contained in the FAIR report, you would see that I am not denying that an interpretative tradition of the Qur'an exists within Islam. To do so would be asinine. Every book is interpreted, and in my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series I refer constantly to the interpreters of the Qur'an that Muslims consider most authoritative -- indeed, they are the ones, principally Ibn Kathir and the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, upon which Ali also in part relies.

So what did I actually say? Here is the quote from me, from the FAIR piece:

Of course, the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose, but Osama’s use of these and other passages in his messages is consistent (as we shall see) with traditional understanding of the Quran. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don’t interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretative traditions that have moved them away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition.

In this passage, am I denying the existence of an interpretative tradition of the Qur'an? That is what FAIR would have you believe, for it follows this quote with this sentence: "Yet Islam does in fact have an interpretive tradition, which Spencer seems bent on ignoring."

In reality, in my books and in the Qur'an Blog I discuss all the various traditions of Qur'an interpretation of the violent passages among Muslims. But since Crane and FAIR find that fact inconvenient, they lie to you about it. Here again they have made the same kind of logical leap you made when you equated not addressing a book with being unable to refute it. Read what I wrote again. I do not say that Islam does not interpret the Qur'an. I was writing very specifically about violent passages in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and saying that in the Jewish and Christian traditions there are long interpretative traditions that reject a literal understanding of those passages. But in Islam, there is no interpretative tradition that rejects the literal understanding of violent passages of the Qur'an.

It isn't in Ali, either. I am in an airport and don't have Ali with me, but I remember his commentary on 47:4 says about beheading unbelievers, “You cannot wage war with kid gloves.” In other words, he doesn't reject literalism and offer a spiritualized interpretation, as Jews and Christians do with the Book of Joshua. Instead, he forthrightly acknowledges that this verse (and others) is about waging war.

So you see: Crane and FAIR have sold you a bill of goods, and you have bought it eagerly. I have taken the time to explain this to you because I suspect there are others who are similarly taken in, and if they happen upon this, perhaps they will begin to see things more clearly.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 10, 2008 3:24 PM

There is also a difference between Muslims and what your impression of Muslim might be if you only read the Koran.

This is an example of a statement one would be unlikely to make regarding the work of Robert Spencer after reading his books. What he quotes is not Qur'an alone but Islamic commentary on the Qur'an that shapes law in Muslim countries and that Muslim leaders in those countries tie to the very tings he cites. These are not some imaginary laws in imaginary countries as in "The Handmaid's Tale" but real laws in real countries. Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 10, 2008 3:26 PM

Abdullah Mikail:

I said "HONEST scrutiny."

You have continually characterized my citation of Islamic authorities other than ones you consider reliable as "lying." It is interesting that this has consistently been when I refer to authorities who interpret Islam less strictly than you do. I recall that the first time you accused me of lying was when I cited Islamic authorities who held that girls must begin to wear hijab at a later age than you thought appropriate.

You have also accused me of "lying" when I have written, and then corrected, statements that were wholly true in their first formulation, but possibly misleading.

It is this that leads me to believe that you are not one to hold up my work to "HONEST scrutiny."

Also, your comparison of it to McCarthyism, as if a hunt for imaginary Communists were comparable to 10,000 plus very real Islamic terror attacks since 9/11, is further evidence.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 10, 2008 3:31 PM

Abdullah,

You wrote:

"What you [Spencer] need is honest introspection into your true goals and aims. Your Jihad mantra is only a vehicle."

You still don't get what's going on here, do you?

Robert is AGAINST THE JIHADISTS! His plainly stated aims are to stand up for human rights and freedom (freedom of speech, thought, conscience, etc, etc), equality of sexes, rule of law and all the good and civilizing things about our Western (yes, read Judeo-Christian) culture.

Jihadists are pretty much against everything I just mentioned. As are you, considering you support Saudi Arabian-style suppression of freedom and oppression of women (as you said you did in a previous thread).

Robert Spencer is simply pointing out WHAT THE JIHADISTS SAY! Jihad is not his "mantra"; it's theirs, and his purpose is to get the news out about this--the wider the better.

In all the exchanges you've had with him, me, and other commentators, you really have not disproven any of the following:

-EVERY SCHOOL of Islamic jurisprudence considers jihad to be war on unbelievers, and a duty, as well.

-Al Qaeda justifies murder by quoting the Qu'ran (and correctly, too).

-Sharia law is inherently inequal and inhumane.

So, as I have said before (and others have too):

GO TELL THE JIHADISTS THEY'RE WRONG! (Not us--we're not the ones killing in the name of our God every SINGLE DAY all over this planet.)

Get it thru your head that ISLAM ITSELF is (at least partly) at fault, and maybe we can have a productive conversation. Otherwise, you just look foolish (at best) and a dangerous, deceitful charlatan (at worst) to practically everyone here...

Posted by: Mo Foe at October 10, 2008 3:47 PM

jihadwatch:
"But in Islam, there is no interpretative tradition that rejects the literal understanding of violent passages of the Qur'an."

Yes, this is how I read it, considering the part quoted in FAIR about how "they simply don’t interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions..."
I can't really comment until I get all the texts and read them.
You mention Ibn Kathir and Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and in one of your Crane links you mention Ibn Ishaq. Does the interpretive history you refer to ever include anyone within the last 500 years? Does Yusuf Ali's?

"You're a scientist? Really?"

Yep. PhD and all ;)

Posted by: dave742 at October 10, 2008 10:16 PM

"Does the interpretive history you refer to ever include anyone within the last 500 years?"

Posted by: dave742 at October 10, 2008 10:16 PM

More importantly, is there a mojor school of Islamic thought that has publicly denounced Ibn Kathir and the Tafsir al-Jalalayn as heretic?

No, I didn't think so.

You are more than welcome to introduce mainstream Islamic jurisprudence sources that contradict Spencer.

You can't.

By your own admission, you haven't done the research that Robert has, yet you are immediately skeptical.

Just figure out a workaround to the closing of the gate of Ijtihad and you have a platform to work off of.

Good luck with that.

Maybe the "Lexis Nexis" can facilitate that task for you you disingenuous dolt.

Posted by: awake at October 11, 2008 12:13 AM

dave742:

Yes, this is how I read it...

No, it isn't. In this thread you repeatedly took FAIR's claim to mean that I was denying that Muslims interpreted the Qur'an at all, which would be as absurd as saying that they don't read it.

I do hope that in your scientific work you don't read so carelessly or bring so many questionable assumptions to bear -- or then turn around and deny that you have done this, rather than correcting for error and moving in a more accurate direction.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 11, 2008 4:43 AM

Yep. See this comment above:

There is also a difference between Muslims and what your impression of Muslim might be if you only read the Koran.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 11, 2008 10:21 AM

Jihadwatch:
"No, it isn't."

The threads on JW focus on perceived negative aspects of Islam, particularly violence. This is your focus. If someone says that you ignore interpretive history, I will tend to think that the comment is in relation to this focus of yours. In addition, the FAIR quote specifically mentions violence. You say that Islam has an interpretive history, and that only the violent passages have been left untouched. This is what I would like to see or myself.

"I do hope that in your scientific work you don't read so carelessly"

I did not read anything carelessly. I have some biases, and I noted that. I am aware of what my biases are. I stated some assumptions I have, but also said that I will check these assumptions. I have checked the work many, many people on the right. My assumptions always seem to be correct. Maybe this time it will be different, and I will find that Islam is an evil religion that tells people to do evil things. Maybe I will realize the imminent danger we are under. Maybe I will realize that people like the Persians, who haven’t attacked anyone for a thousand years, were simply biding their time and waiting to attack the US. Who knows.

Awake:
“Just figure out a workaround to the closing of the gate of Ijtihad and you have a platform to work off of.”

“A systematic and chronological study of the original legal sources reveals that these views on the history of ijtihad after the second/eighth century are entirely baseless and inaccurate."

Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed? Author(s): Wael B. Hallaq Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 3-41

I found my workaround. Read the article.

“By your own admission, you haven't done the research that Robert has”

As I said, I will look at it. Sometimes, all it takes is looking up sources. A while back I was confronted with the author of an article from the Heritage Foundation who wrote a study based on 4 years of research. It take about an hour of checking his sources to find out that it was all BS. His sources said the exact opposite as what he claimed they did:

captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010143.php

Sometimes all you have to do is look.

Posted by: dave742 at October 11, 2008 10:31 AM

actually it looks like Kevin demolished you dave, but you are so besotted with yourself you must think the exchange made you

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 11, 2008 2:44 PM

look good.

The article you cite proves that Robert and awake have accuarately described the majority view on ijtihad.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 11, 2008 2:46 PM

In addition you have shown yourself incapable of understanding even basic English. A tradition of literal interpretation is an interpretive tradition.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 11, 2008 2:57 PM

Aneecrockett:
"The article you cite proves that Robert and awake have accuarately described the majority view on ijtihad."

Could you explain why you say this? The article says:

"The conclusion that the gate of ijtihad was not closed entails a re-evaluation of what we have thus far considered to be the legal history of Islam. The continuity of ijtihad throughout Islamic history suggests that developments in positive law, legal theory, and the judiciary have indeed taken place, and only through a chronological study of the jurists' writings is it possible to trace these developments and to reconstruct a more accurate picture of the legal history of Islam."

I don't understand how this reflects what awake said. I am not an expert, or course. Can you explain it to me?

Posted by: dave742 at October 11, 2008 2:58 PM

Annecrocket:
About itjihad:

The phrase was not even widely used until 1972:

“…by the middle of this century, and particularly after 1972, beginning with Ostrorog and ‘The Angora Reform,’ the phrase ‘the closure of the gate/door of ijtihad’ becomes increasingly prevalent.”

And why this previously unimportant phrase is so important to those here:

“the phrase ‘closure of the gate of ijtihad’ is important because it may be something that Orientalists seized upon as a way to generalize the notion of itjihad and not bother with or even think about the details relating to it. Indeed, it is a convenient method by which to pronounce Islamic Law as inferior – the gate of ijtihad closed, and therefore Islamic law has not developed for centuries. With this phrase, then, Islamic law in just a few words was generalized and rendered inferior and backward.”

Ali-Karamali & Fiona Dunne, The Ijtihad Controversy, 9 Arab Law Quarterly 238 (1994);

It's always nice to have a short phrase which negates having to learn about something.

"The gates of ijtihad [interpretation] in Islam are always open”:

csmonitor.com/2007/0613/p01s03-woaf.html

Posted by: dave742 at October 11, 2008 4:07 PM

"Negates having to learn about something?" How about having to learn that 3,000 innocent people die while they're at work in their office building because of some idiots' "jihad"? How about a daily reminder that you are part of "the great Satan who certain "faithful" must constantly wage jihad against? If your are in fact a scientist, I hope you don't learn about the facts of jihad the hard way, like others in peaceful positions in offices did.

Posted by: charlie at October 11, 2008 11:38 PM

Abdullah

You should not have brought up McCarthy as a source to prove a point. You lost any credibility you could possibly have had by referencing a person who has been proven correct in his charges.

Hollywood itself is its own proof.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 12, 2008 12:43 AM

Maybe from an Islamic viewpoint McCarthy was an admirable character. (sarc)

Posted by: charlie at October 12, 2008 12:52 AM

You say of Robert Spencer

Also, when the subject of a book drifts further and further from mainstream thought, I think the necessity to address other works increases greatly. I think you must admit that your views are not the mainstream, and for your views to be accepted by a rational observer you must confront all the points made by those in the mainstream and show why they are wrong.

Yet of Wael Hallaq you have no such hesitation, even though he admits that he is seeking to challenge the commonly accepted i.e., mainstream idea that the gates of ijtihad are closed. That is Robert Spencer's contention and Wael Hallaq's essay supports the idea that the mainstream considers the gates of ijtihad closed.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 13, 2008 9:35 AM

Of course, to argue with someone who says

It's always nice to have a short phrase which negates having to learn about something.

Such as

"The gates of ijtihad [interpretation] in Islam are always open”:
csmonitor.com/2007/0613/p01s03-woaf.html

shows me that I was correct in my initial assessment that I am arguing with a Vizzini character who is so besotted with his own intelligence that he is certain he can ascertain all that he needs to know in an instant and guess what is probably in books and be right.
As for Dave's racist, ethnocentric idea that people must have no indepednet motivation other than reacting to the Great White Father in Washington i.e.,

There are more extremist Muslims because there are bombs constantly falling on their countries.

I would urge readers (note, "readers" obviously does not include Dave who can just intuit contnet) to see peruse the archives

Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 13, 2008 11:13 AM