| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Now that the execrable dhimmi flick Kingdom of Heaven has faded from the headlines and isn't garnering top box office receipts, it's time to check in with The Scholar of the House, Khaled Abou El Fadl.
Khaled Abou El Fadl is the Islamic scholar who predicted: "In my view, it is inevitable – I'm willing to risk my reputation on this – that after this movie is released there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it. People will go see it on a weekend and decide to teach some turbanhead a lesson."
Well, have there been any hate crimes because of Kingdom of Heaven? No? Not even one?
This is by no means the first questionable statement from Khaled Abou El Fadl. He has asserted: “Islamic tradition does not have a notion of holy war. Jihad simply means to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause. . . . Holy war (al-harb al-muqaddasah) is not an expression used by the Qur’anic text or Muslim theologians. In Islamic theology war is never holy; it is either justified or not. . . .”
His assertion that Islam doesn’t have a tradition of holy war suggests an unwillingness to face uncomfortable facts of Islamic history and theology. It’s unclear what term he would prefer to use for conquests of pagan Arabia by the Prophet Muhammad; the early Muslims’ extension of those conquests into Syria, Egypt, and eventually all of the Middle East and North Africa; the continuing pressure upon Christian Europe by the House of Islam — pressure that resulted in the conquest of Spain (later lost), Eastern Europe, and Constantinople, the jewel of Christendom. Whether or not Abou El Fadl will admit it, all of this and more was done in the name of jihad.
Abou El Fadl is widely known as an Islamic reformer. Is it reform to deny uncomfortable aspects of Islam, rather than confront them and call for change?
El Fadl’s emotional reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks was quoted around the country by people all across the political spectrum. He recounted what he called “a prayer, a wish, a plea: ‘Please, God, not Muslims. [Do not let it be] Muslims who have done this, or anyone who is calling themselves a Muslim.’” But he somehow knew: “Something in my heart just told me that I know it’s going to turn out to be someone who believes himself a Muslim to have done this. I wept for a good hour. It was so much suffering. As a professor who teaches in this field, and as a Muslim who is committed to this religion, for it to all to come to this.”
Come to what? El Fadl wasn’t crying over the attacks as such. “It wasn’t just that I was crying about the planes or the fear or the anxiety. . . . I was crying over what has happened to Muslim civilization. Where are we now? I was crying over the fate of something that I love dearly, and that is Islam.”
In El Fadl’s view, Muslim civilization didn’t begin to go wrong on September 11, 2001. He enumerates earlier events that caused him pain as well: “Well before this, there was the destroying of the Buddha statues; there [was] the oppression of women in Afghanistan; there [was] the decision to have Christians and Jews wear distinctive marks in Afghanistan. It’s ugliness after ugliness after ugliness.”
These expressions of regret are laudable as far as they go, but they leave the impression that violent Islamic intolerance is a relatively recent phenomenon. After all, the Taliban didn’t originate the idea that Muslim women should be heavily restricted, or that Christians and Jews in Muslim lands should wear distinctive marks. Even before Iran became Khomeini’s laboratory of the new Islamic state, in some areas of Iran Jews were made to wear distinctive yellow patches on their clothing as late as 1950. Nor was Iran or Afghanistan innovative in this; such laws are rooted in the classic directives of the Sharia for religious minorities. Distinctive dress for Muslims and Jews was first mandated over a millennium ago by the Caliph Ja’far al-Mutawakkil (847-861). Although the rules were relaxed here and there, the oppression of the dhimmis has been a constant of Islamic history.
But there is no hint of this from Khaled Abou El Fadl.
The public discourse on Islam and terrorism is largely dominated by self-important blowhards who are wrong and wrong again, wrong consistently, and yet are never called to account and are called upon as "experts" again and again. I think we should do what Khaled Abou El Fadl asked: stake his reputation on his predictions of hate crimes by viewers of Kingdom of Heaven.
Posted by Robert at June 2, 2005 12:23 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
His lip service is irrelevant his continuing support for anything Islamic is by default support for anything done in the name of islam the only reform in islam is rejection of the Quran.
Turd soup is still made out of shit you cant eat around it.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 2, 2005 1:07 PM
El Fadl's laments are self-serving: how do they affect Islam??? How about the rest of us? Of course, that's right; non-believers don't count.
Posted by: epg at June 2, 2005 2:49 PM
His prediction was really an expression of his hopeful wish that there would be violence against Muslims. After all, if violence had been perpetrated against Muslims because of this mediocre movie, wouldn't Muslims feel justified post facto for their rage and hatred against us? Who is more likely to murder and riot after a movie, or the flushing of a work of fiction? It's the Muslim EVERY TIME! Even they know this fact.
Muslim allegations about violence and intolerance most accurately reflect thier own violence and intolerance against non-Mulsims. They seem to suffer from some kind of mental illness in their ability to project their own failures and dark demons onto "the other." Listen to Muslim predictions and accusations about our supposed misdeeds, and know that they are actually telling the truth about what they wish for, and how they will respond to events if given the chance.
What worries me most is how does one go about curing 1 billion delusional rage filled nut jobs? Certainly we must stop admitting them into our country as a first step!
at June 2, 2005 4:14 PM
"In my view, it is inevitable - I'm willing to risk my reputation on this - that after this movie is released there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it. People will go see it on a weekend and decide to teach some turbanhead a lesson."
Apparently his reputation isn’t worth much!
I don’t get his turban comment, most Moslems don’t wear turbans around here, if they did, it would sure solve our identity problem.
at June 2, 2005 4:33 PM
He must be sorely disappointed that muslims were unable to wallow in their victim mentality.
Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at June 2, 2005 5:07 PM
It's interesting that he prayed that it wasn't muslims who flew those planes into the buildings.
When christians or buddhists or any other religion saw those planes fly into the WTC towers, I bet that none of them thought "Oh god, please don't let it be a christian flying that plane" or "oh god, please don't let it be a buddhist flying that plane".
The fact that he knew that it could be muslims, says a hell of a lot about what he knew his religion could be capable of.
Posted by: Voltaire at June 2, 2005 5:25 PM
My dear Capulet,
Of course! Of course! Thank you so much! Of course, a benighted soul such I only ever watches Fox News. That's why Jihad Watch is nothing but a compendium of Fox stories.
You wouldn't, exalted sir, have anything so mundane as a ... link to a non-Fox story of such hate crimes, would you?
With cringing respect,
Robert Spencer
at June 2, 2005 6:36 PM
Capulet-
What the hell are you trying to say? That the Koran flushing DIDN'T happen because it WAS reported?
Or that it DID HAPPEN because it was DENIED having happened?
Or do you think that the Mohammadans being attacked wouldn't be reporting it?
Or that the internet -where any accusation, true or false, could be reported- doesn't exist?
Wouldn't that make those who are attacked -who do not report it- enemies of Islam for lying?
You make no sense.
You must be a Muslim.
Posted by: BigSleep at June 2, 2005 7:52 PM
"In my view, it is inevitable – I'm willing to risk my reputation on this – that after this movie is released there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it. People will go see it on a weekend and decide to teach some turbanhead a lesson."
Reasonable assumption if you are a muslim, since this appears to be Standard Operating Procedure in their world.
It shows that he doesn't understand western civilization very well.
Posted by: treehugger at June 2, 2005 7:54 PM
Come to think of it, according to standard Muslim procedure (smp), hate crimes WERE committed after the movie premiered. People criticised the false portrayal of Islam in the film, and this is deeply offensive to Muslims. As we are coming to understand, ANYTHING that offends a Muslim is a transgression against Islam. Heck, the fact that non-Muslims exist is intrinsically an attack against Islam. So the man is correct, hate crimes were committed, and his "reputation" remains intact. These guys are much more clever than all the riots, backwardness, and primitivism would convey. There's method to their madness!
Posted by: jsla at June 2, 2005 8:10 PM
If there had been a "hate crime" against a muslim due to this poxy film, we would have heard about it by now. CAIR would have been all over it by now. Possibly handing out their anti-semitic korans to help us all understand that much misunderstood of religions, islam. It is more likely that a crime was committed due to some teenager aping "Grand Theft Auto".
Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at June 2, 2005 8:51 PM
We are not brain washed Muslim killer sheep, we use reason and respect the rule of law.
I may not like Islam, but there is no way I would be aggresive or unpleasent to a Muslim unless they AS A PERSON gave me a reason to act that way.
Capulet, understand that statistics will give a blip, so the number of attacks would show an increase in the period immeadiately after the film, screening out the timing of other incidents (like quran toilet flushing) should give an indication of the effects of the film.
The film was so Muslim orientated I was surprised that there wasn't mass reports of dirty kafirs hugging their Muslims friends and brothers.
Posted by: Daffersd at June 3, 2005 4:24 AM
This thing about California banning a certain version of the Koran because of its anti-Semitic passages...I am amazed that this has not been a bigger story.
Just think about it. Effectively the Koran was banned. It was banned because of the hate speech inside it. I have never heard of this happening anywhere in the world before. Why didnt CAIR or some other organisation protest this and take it into court? Because that would mean everything being dragged up and effectively the Koran put on trial, and I dont think they or the Koran could handle that amount of scrutiny. It is amazing that more of this has not been made. Effectively, if they withdrew that version, they used an abrogated one, and that is effectively 'fiddling with Gods Word'.
I hope we see more of this and other States in America ban the Jew-Hating version of the Koran from their prisons. Ultimately, I would like to see the Koran put on trial.
at June 3, 2005 5:03 AM
So how do we go about arranging such a legal attempt across the West, I would propose seperate suits in each European nation with an appeal to the European Court at the end, think of the publicity and the number of people woken up to the evil in those books and the religion.
The only issue is arranging it and getting the funds.
Check out this attempt in India:
This is the oppostion
http://voi.org/books/tcqp/chii5.htm
It is likely that there are similar clauses in other jurisdictions, but this can be checked out, but it an approach that would really expose the hatred in Islam.
I wonder what happed to the petitioner, I bet he was murdered in some horrible fashion or is hiding somewhere.
Posted by: Daffersd at June 3, 2005 5:30 AM
Zico,
Your thought about the Quran being placed on trial was also expressed by A10Billr at JW. He provided a link (http://voi.org/books/tcqp/) concerning just such an effort in India, in 1985. I'm sorry that I don't know how to incorporate linkable links in these posts.
The link takes you to the 'Calcutta Quran Petition'. While the petetion was well researched, and clearly attacked the Quaran as a seditious and hateful docucment, it failed its judicial test.
I've requested a copy of the Quran from CAIR. Hopefully it will be the anti-Semitic version banned from public schools, by, I believe, the city of Los Angeles.
Further good opportunities, such as the LA ban, such not go so lightly acknowledged.
Indeed, such opportunities to 'effectively put the Quran on trial' such be fully persued.
Here's a thought.
The next time there is a demonstration in your neck of the woods (or mine) get all the appropriate faces on tape. Do the same for the next demonstration after that, and the one after that, and every one thereafter.
Eventually another one will result in property damage (as happened 'over there' in 2002), or personal injury to an infidel. And eventually such incidents will occur in which the phrase 'Allah u Achbar', or some other clearly Islamic phrase or slur will be used by members of the raging mob. The more and louder the better.
Then file either a criminal or a personal injury lawsuit.
And drag the perpetrators (including any clerics caught on tape whipping up the crowd) and the Quran into court.
While I'd pity the girl it would happen to, the first court case involving female genital mutilation or an honor killing, with clearly Islamic undertones, should also receive great public exposure.
If successful, there will be (1) a greater public knowledge of what's really in the Quran (by chapter and verse), and (2) who's using it for what purpose. In addition, further attempts to push such issues as Islamic attire in public schools will be tainted by that public knowledge, as would attempts to establish Sharia law, or any other Islamic customs which clash with Western culture, values and laws.
Ultimately, the Quran itself might actually be brought to trial (as in India) as the seditious and hateful document that some of it really is.
Posted by: PRCS at June 3, 2005 6:03 AM
Capulet,
So if we haven't heard about it, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. OK.
What you're really saying then is that even though we haven't heard about it, maybe it DID happen...OK.
So, by the same token, if we don't have any proof for some mystical god that lives in a black rock and commanded (through the angel Gibraeel) a merchant to go on a wild religion n' killin' spree through the Middle East, that means that such a god probably exists.
Gotcha. All clear.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at June 3, 2005 10:37 AM
Oh! Oh that hurt! Capulet insulted me.
Capulet, I don't accept insults from morons. Particularly when they screw up the timelines for their own whacky religions.
See, if Mohammed were just a whack-job from Mecca, and this "allah" never existed, it would have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the validity or non-validity of Jesus, or of the Jews' "Y-hweh".
Because, as even you must know, Mo-Mo came AFTER those events.
Oops.
Wanna try me again, dork? LOL
Imam Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at June 3, 2005 5:17 PM
That was HILARIOUS, Capulet! Especially the part where you tried to make a point - and then didn't - and then whined at me! Awesome!
Lemme see:
Geoff:
So if we don't have any proof for some mystical god that lives in a black rock and commanded (through the angel Gibraeel) a merchant to go on a wild religion n' killin' spree through the Middle East, that means that such a god probably exists.
Zippy:
"Well in that case, we would live in a world in which Jesus never existed, [and where] the Jews never had a kingdom in Israel."
Then:
"Did I ever say anything about who and what came first and after?"
Okaaaaay - so if there's no 'allah', how could there NOT be a Jesus, nor a Jewish kingdom in Israel? How exactly does the existence of this 'allah' validate Israel or Jesus? How does 'allah' relate to the Jewish and/or Christian God?
By comparison, then, if Jesus had not been God, could the Jews have had a god? Spell it out, mini-brain.
LOL. I'll be very interested to see how you dig yourself out of this one. I already know your answer, but you make me laugh.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at June 3, 2005 7:03 PM
Capulet-
Your reasoning sort of tangles itself up in knots because, as one more Muslim apologist, you are finding yourself a victim of what they all eventually discover happening to them:
-they can't keep their lies straight or their masks separated.
Just say it:
Allah is greatest, you are infidel dogs, we will kill you all when we triumph, and you will burn forever in hell! Inshallah!
There, wasn't that easy?
Don't you feel better?
Just tell the truth!
It's so much easier that trying to remember:
Now, am I pretending to be a Jew here, or a Christian, or a secular leftist or a Buddhist today?
Or:
Did I say I think moderates are good or bad?
As well as:
Am I for or against terroristic jihad this time?
As Ben Jonson, Shakespeare's pal, put it:
"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive."
at June 3, 2005 7:46 PM
PRCS:
I had read the Calcutta petition many years ago. The arguments laid out in it, are clear and the evidence overwhelming. And yet, the case came to nothing. The government and the judiciary were in panic. Politics will always play a part in such a court action.
The trouble here is, that it is a book that is being sued. I don't think the courts will wear that, no matter how clear and overwhelming the case against the koran is. As for risk - there is a great risk of turning islam and muslims into a premier status victim group.
I like your idea of an individual or a group of people bringing action, on the basis that the jihadis were primarily guided by the koran. Now we have a real and identifiable victim or victims. The courts likes to see a real case of wrong doing that has affected real people.
I suggest the relatives of those murdered on 9/11, as a clear group of victims. If such an action was brought, the media will then concentrate on them, particularly women and children. Opposition or vilification of this group is just not possible - morally or ethically. Politically - it is suicide for any politician. The opposing victim group, ie muslims, will not have a chance - they will be marginalised. All they will be able to say is that muslims were also victims on 9/11. But if they do, then they are caught, and if they dont, they are caught again. Moreover they will appear as nothing but uncaring and uncompassionate whingers.
Your suggestion is great.
Posted by: DP111 at June 3, 2005 7:48 PM
"This isn't just an Islamic thing; Christian Arabs use the word 'Allah' in the Bible for the word God. "
/sarcasm
Gee! Really? No foolin'? For real? No joke? Say it ain't so! You're kidding! No way!
Woooooow.
/sarcasm off
Now that I've 'wrapped my head' around that fact, only slightly better known than the fact that the Israelis have nukes, I'll continue.
Capulet thinks: "My point was: if you're going to deny the existence of one religion 's God because there is 'no proof', then you might as well deny the existence of God in every religion. Again, stop trying to change the subject.I'm not going to start talkin about whether there is a God or not, as this is not the place or the time."
Oh, no, Cappie - you don't understand.
See, I don't have to deny the existence of all gods or no gods. Those aren't my choices. Our card game's a bit different from that.
See, I can deny or agree with the existence of any lil' ol' gods I so chooses! However, I happen to disagree pretty strongly with this (since you insist on being specific, though I thought it was pretty clear already) ISLAMIC 'allah'. Speaking as an independent, the Christian god seems a lot more believable to me. Y-hweh also. I think these 'versions' of God might be real. It's the islamic god that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since it's a) contradictory, b) veeeeery reminiscent of something human-inspired ("Hey! Now I can marry my daughters-in-law! Thanks, Allah!"), c) contradictory, and d) brutal, murderous and unfair.
Now if you think my scorn is "changing the subject", then I guess you already have some kind of vested interest in islam. But this is my opinion, and it's a pretty well-founded one.
"The Jewish kingdom remark was misplaced and by saying Jesus, I meant Jesus being the Messiah or be resurrected. Oh, an admission of a mistake! Something you probably could not allow your hard head to muster, eh, Geoff?"
I would, if I ever made any. ("Allow my hard head to muster"?? Dude, English please.) Then again, you still didn't admit that Mohammed's 'prophethood' has nothing at all to do with the relevance and believability of the other two 'Abrahamic' faiths. And why would he? The others are only valid somehow if he's a prophet? See where I'm going with this?
"But wait, you probably knew every word I was going to type, right Geoff?"
Nah, just that you'd still harp on the Mohammed thing.
Aunt Cleo sees a big let-down for you if you continue in your line of questioning!
But allah knows least.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at June 3, 2005 10:51 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.)