Last week while I was speaking in Nebraska, I received some tweets out of the blue from Joseph Lumbard, a convert to Islam who is Professor and Chair of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies in the department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University. Lumbard excoriated me for what he claimed was a factual error I had made in a Jihad Watch post about Brandeis’ rescinding of an honorary degree for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although what he claimed was false was actually something that she, not I, had written:
Hirsi Ali had not made any false statement, either, but that didn’t stop Lumbard from going on to send me a series of arrogant, contemptuous tweets, including:
After this had gone on for awhile, I challenged him to a debate. He readily accepted, saying: “anytime any place. I will dominate you!” And continued in his previous arrogant vein:
I asked him to email me to set up the details of time, place, topic and parameters, but it was several days before he did so; in the meantime, he continued to hurl insults and false charges on Twitter, making it clear that he was yet another in an apparently endless line of Islamic supremacists (Hussam Ayloush, Reza Aslan, Hussein Ibish, Qasim Rashid, Salam al-Marayati, Ahmed Rehab, Ibrahim Hooper, Dean Obeidallah, Haroon Moghul, etc. etc. etc.) who behave in absolutely vile ways toward those whom they hate and fear: gutter language, contemptuous hectoring, claims that their foe is too stupid and hateful to deal with on the level of rational argumentation, straw-man mischaracterizations of their positions, accusations of “hate” and even complicity in murder, etc. It comes across unmistakably that for all their pious posturing about their opponents fostering “hate,” in reality these Islamic supremacists are supremely hateful human beings, with hearts full of rage, minds full of arrogance, and tongues full of venom. They apparently believe that a non-Muslim who dares to oppose them has no rights they are bound to respect.
And on top of all that, they’re abjectly incapable of defending their positions — a fact that they hide behind an arrogant refusal to engage in rational discussion or debate with their opponents. They treat them as inferior human beings, not worthy of their time or attention, mirroring the second-class status Islamic law mandates for non-Muslims. Why should “the most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6) be accorded the opportunity for a discussion as equals with one of the “best of people” (Qur’an 3:110)? And so here is my exchange with Joseph Lumbard of Brandeis about a debate:
1. Lumbard to Spencer
Dear Mr. Spencer,
In response to your desire for a debate, I propose that we hold a public debate regarding the accuracy of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), with regard to the topics of Shariah, jihad, “dhimmitude”, and taqiyyah.
To make sure that each of us has the opportunity to speak without interruption, I propose that we employ something along the lines of the Lincoln/Douglas debate format. This will also allow the opportunity for some interaction. A proposed format comes after my signature at the end of the email.
I prefer in person debates, as this allows for the ambiance to be sensed by the broader audience when watching a video. Along these lines, I propose that we find a mutually agreed upon neutral location with an agreed upon neutral moderator.
Last, I think it is of the utmost importance that we agree to only post the debate in full when it is posted on various online fora.
Yours Sincerely,
Joseph Lumbard
Chair Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
Brandeis UniversityProposed Debate Format
Opening Statement (Affirmative: 10 minutes)
Opening Statement (Negative: 10 minutes)Rebuttal (Negative: 5 minutes)
Rebuttal (Affirmative: 5 minutes)Cross Examination (Affirmative: 5 minutes)
Cross Examination (Negative: 5 minutes)Break (5-10 minutes])
Second Rebuttal, or Second Statement (Negative: 5-10 minutes)
Second Rebuttal, or Second Statement (Affirmative: 5-10 minutes)Closing Statement (Negative: 3-5 minutes)
Closing Statement (Affirmative: 3-5 minutes)Audience Questions (Optional: 20-40 minutes. Can be moved before Closing Statements.)
There was an obvious problem with his suggestion: no debate topic. I’m happy to defend my positions, but his debate format provided for an affirmative and a negative statement and yet he didn’t propose any statement on which an affirmative or negative position could be taken. An amorphous discussion about my book in general would give him too many opportunities simply to change the subject and thereby avoid being pinned down about uncomfortable facts — I’ve been in too many radio debates and exchanges with Islamic apologists not to guard against that by having a clearly defined topic. Accordingly I wrote this back to Lumbard:
2. Spencer to Lumbard:
While your format follows standard debate topic, you haven’t proposed a debate thesis. Do you know how one is properly formulated? If not, I will send you some suggestions. Let me know.
3. Lumbard to Spencer:
That’s why I said “something along the lines of” not just following exactly.
4. Spencer to Lumbard:
That phrase refers to the format, not to the debate thesis. Again: do you know how to formulate a debate thesis? If not, as I said, and apparently you do not, I will suggest some possible ones.
5. Lumbard to Spencer:
Do ou [sic] mean to say that you do not wish to debate the veracity of your works because you cannot stand behind them?
6. Spencer to Lumbard:
Where did I say that?
Do you seriously not know what a debate thesis is?
Do you seriously not know how to formulate a debate topic?
You’re a college professor, and you’re full of sneers and arrogance at my alleged non-acquaintance with the facts. And you don’t even know how to formulate a debate topic properly?
7. Lumbard to Spencer:
Everyone knows what a debate thesis is. You are obfuscating by trying to make it seem that one cannot have a debate along the format I proposed without having a specific thesis. You clearly do not want to debate the accuracy of your own works because you know they cannot stand up to scrutiny.
8. Spencer to Lumbard:
You are making assertions without evidence.
I will not debate without a thesis — that is a license for you to slide off-topic and spend the whole debate on personal abuse, as I know you will anyway.
Here, since you clearly don’t know how to formulate a debate thesis, I will do it for you:
Resolved: The Qur’an teaches warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers
Affirmative: Spencer
Negative: Lumbardor if you don’t like that one, how about
Resolved: Sharia denies equality of rights to women, non-Muslims, and gays
Affirmative: Spencer
Negative: LumbardIf you don’t like those, I’ll come up with some more. But that, akhi, is how to formulate a debate thesis.
Note that he had specifically listed Sharia among the topics he wanted to debate, as well as jihad and dhimmitude, which would have been subsumed into a debate on the Qur’an. But I sent that email last Tuesday, and aside from a few more snipes from him on Twitter, that was the last I heard from Joseph Lumbard. So once again we encounter a preening, strutting, but ultimately empty-minded Islamic supremacist academic who only holds his position because he parrots the politically correct line that dominates a corrupt and compromised academia today. There are so many of those, and so few honest academics telling the truth about Islam and jihad in our nation’s universities today. This, too, will not end well.
Jay Boo says
Audience Questions (Optional: 20-40 minutes. Can be moved before Closing Statements.)
Audience Questions / Just before closing statements?
Too many opportunities for leftist Islam apologist stunts and diversions
Tradewinds says
“Joseph Lumbard, a convert to Islam”
Well that says it all. Anyone who voluntarily converts to the Religion of Terrorism and thinks Allah the Arabian moon deity is God is a few ants short of a picnic.
Jay Boo says
Converts to Islam
One reason is stupidity yes that is true
Another reason is opportunistic
Stupidity is more easily forgiven of the two.
john spielman says
it doesn’t really matter why Lumbard converted to Islam, the religion of death and darkness, lies deceptions, murder and terror, he is now lost and is doomed to hell fire, unless he repents of this evil religion of Satan.
I suspect he is behaving badly because an evil spirit is controlling him.
somehistory says
Speaking of opportunity, it seems that for many this must be the reason to convert to a religion/ideology/political system that is shown every day to be one of domination, torment, hatred, warfare, etc.
It reminds me of the child molester getting a position as a school teacher, school bus driver/attendant, little league coach, ice cream truck driver, or any other place little children can be found in groups of all sizes. They know just what kind of child personality (obedient, shy, needing love and affection) will be easiest to manipulate.
Or the guy who wants to dominate women, dating or marrying a woman who fits the profile of one who will be submissive to outrageous demands.
One like this *professor* (one who professes, my definition), who has converted to a belief where dominating/beating women, abusing/molesting children, or just feeling superior to all others of a different set of beliefs and insulting same is understandable if that one already harbors such ideals as his own. It is not only accepted, but encouraged.
Converts seem to express hatred for non-believers so easily. Did they always hate their neighbors? Did they always hate women? Did they always feel superior, but not know just in what way to express themselves without being defeated by rational arguments? (Professors are wrong a lot, but their students are not allowed to tell them so).Of course, he was defeated in this exchange we have been allowed to read, but doesn’t have to acknowledge it as he is now a muslim.
In any case, all of these things ( in my opinion), are stupid.
Always enjoy reading your comments, btw.
Huck Folder says
I think he was sucked in as an impressionable kid by that Goebbelsian Nasr.
Huck Folder says
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2005/07/06/Muslim-scholars-forbid-labeling-apostasy/UPI-40761120672128/
Muslim scholars ‘forbid’ labeling apostasy
By SANA ABDALLAH July 6, 2005
AMMAN, Jordan, July 6 (UPI) — Over 170 Muslim scholars, thinkers and historians [and Lumbard!] agreed Wednesday to forbid “takfeer,” or accusing other Muslims of apostasy, and decided to work out a criteria for issuing fatwas — religious edicts — in an attempt to unify the eight schools of Islamic thought and put an end to violence done in the name of the religion.
The decision came in an unprecedented fatwa issued by leading clerics from the eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence following three days of deliberations in the Jordanian capital, Amman, where scholars from over 40 countries gathered in the first International Islamic Conference.
Joseph Lumbard, an American Muslim and special advisor to Jordan’s King Abdullah on interfaith affairs, insists that addressing the religious factors is the most important way to uproot violence by simply referring to only one thing: Islam.
“It is clearly unacceptable in Islam’s dictates of law to kill non-combatants,” he said, adding that the fatwa issued by the scholars in Amman might “put doubt in the minds” of militants that listen to the edicts issued by those going against the dictates of Islamic law.
He told journalists the conference and the final fatwa (statement) was “just a first step…the religious component needs to be addressed on a religious basis, and this is what this conference is doing.”
Carrying water for savages!
DVult says
Resolved: Converts to islam are mentally defective but not mentally unstable.
Affirmative: Spencer
Negative: Lumbard
I note that his two main arguments are assertion without evidence (a great phrase from above) or invective. A university professor should be aware that just saying something does not make it true and that a sneer is not an argument.
Artie Galvin says
“A university professor should be aware that just saying something does not make it true and that a sneer is not an argument”, and such is contemporary academia.
voegelinian says
Correction: A few talking ants short of a picnic.
Huck Folder says
I prefer “A few suras short of a Book of Hate™”
weavo2 says
Joseph must be a dunce. Why would anyone convert to Islam?
There are certainly many lost souls in academia.
Must be the Gump theory: Stupid is as stupid does.
Rob says
BDS Brandeis
kikorikid says
“Nowhere Man, are you listening?”
Champ ✿ says
Last week while I was speaking in Nebraska, I received some tweets out of the blue from Joseph Lumbard, a convert to Islam who is Professor and Chair of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies in the department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A convert to islam? …oh my, he has chosen *most* unwisely.
C’mon be a man and debate Robert. What, are you chicken? …baagaa!!!
duh_swami says
Well, Robert won the debate about the debate easily, so Lombard took the easy way out, that of the chicken. That way he can still crow, but he doesn’t have to show up.
Resolve: An incoherent angel named Gabriel visited Mahound over 22 years and dictated the Quran to him.
Negative: Duh swami
Speachless: Lumbard.
Jay Boo says
It was not an angel named Gabriel. Muhammad made that up so he could have someone else to blame when he got caught in one of his many lies.
When totally cornered Muhammad would blame the Satanic Verses ‘jinn spirits’ and run off to a cave to argue with a donkey.
Of course the dumb donkey never bothered to say a single word; It would just be too easy.
duh_swami says
Gabriel showed up but she was drunk. haha, I made that up.
duh_swami says
Actually, it wasn’t Gabriel at all, it was Lillith. She used to sneak out of the house at night when Allah was asleep and visit men in their dreams. That’s why there is so much sex talk in Quran and hadith.
Huck Folder says
Donkey: “Hey mo it’s time for maghrib.”
mo: “Let us bray.”
Salah says
“It was not an angel named Gabriel.”
According to the famous muslim scholar Al-Qurtubi, it was a demon named al Abyad.
Al-Qurtubi (arabic) 37/18 / تفسير القرطبي
فقال الأبيض ، و هو صاحب الأنبياء ، و هو الذي قصد النبي .. في صورة جبريل
Translation:
Al-Abyad (a demon) is the friend of the prophets and he is the one who went to the Prophet (pbuh) in the form of Gabriel (the angel)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/10/muhammad-and-satan_24.html
rmortimer says
Spencer already won the pre-debate.
Lumbard is walking into one of the worst defeats of his career if he goes ahead.
Artie Galvin says
I am SO looking forward to this debate. Lumbard will look like a first class idiot.
QuoVadis says
Joseph Lumbard is a convert to Islam but he didn’t change to an Islamic name.?He’s yet another Liberal whose practicing his own version of Islam. Yeah, the one without all those hard edges and killing of unbelievers kind of Islam.
I can’t wait until Saudi Arabia runs out of Oil. This Petroleum based Dawah is truly annoying.
jude newman says
Well done Robert, you were the only adult in that exchange. It seems even western convert males quickly descend to the level of prepubescent children in any exchange of ideas.
nacazo says
Resolved: Lumbard means chicken in Nebraskan.
affirmative: nacazo
negative: Chickens
jihad3tracker says
I THOUGHT THAT TOMORROW WAS EASTER SUNDAY — BUT IT IS ACTUALLY CHRISTMAS EVE because the dunce-capped “professor” Joseph Lombard handed us here at Jihadwatch big gift : proof of his stupidity. On vivid display here is what happens when political correctness in academic hiring wreaks havoc on a formerly superb university.
I am sincerely saddened to write that — as a graduate of Wesleyan University way back in 1970 with friends at Brandeis — before a wishful illusion ( all cultures are equally deserving of respect ) got its hand upon the throat of scholarship.
voegelinian says
So you are fully aware of the specious fallacy of PC multiculturalism, yet you bought — hook, line and sinker — the PC lie (which is also the Leftist lie) about Joe McCarthy and “McCarthyism”…? Oh what a tangled skein PC MC weaves!
duh_swami says
I could debate Joe all night or three minutes about jinn. Do they actually exist or not?
Huck Folder says
mo’s favorite was jinn and tonic.
‘tonic’ was mospeak for aisha.
wildjew says
Hear, hear!
jihad3tracker says
1. Check out Lombard’s Wikipedia posting before he “revises” it and takes down pictures …
2. Tell friends to come on over to party in a moon-bounce, and have some Saturday chuckles.
3. Appreciate our beloved treasure Robert Spencer, 24/7 enemy of traitors like this degreed fool.
Saleem Smith says
It would be interesting to learn where this Brandeis University Muslim Professor stands on the matter of Islamic apostasy.
We ex-Muslims living with Islam’s formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know that Islam’s canonical texts record that the prophet of Islam instructed his followers to kill those Muslims attempting to leave the fold of Islam.
Being a Professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, Joseph Lumbard MUST know that the followers of Muhammad are required to murder any friend or family member that chooses to depart from the Islamic religion.
Some Islamic apologists go so far as to claim that Islam does not call for the death of Muslim apostates. While other Muslims acknowledge that the Islamic scriptures do indeed call for the death of ex-Muslims.
Regardless of whether or not Islamic theology prescribes death for the apostates of Islam (and it certainly does), most believing Muslims admit that leaving Islam is a very dangerous proposition.
In fact Islam’s canonical texts clearly confirm in literally hundreds of separate passages that those Muslims who leave Islam are to be put to death.
But the voluminous violence and hatred found in the Islamic texts are not reserved for the apostates of Islam alone. The Qur’an and Sunnah are overflowing with violence and hatred towards the unbelieving infidel.
The 164 jihad verses in the Qur’an make jihad warfare a central tenet of the Islamic creed. Many of Muhammad’s recorded saying and doings found in the hadith and sira are much more violent, hateful and insane.
At least 75% of the Sira (biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him) is about jihad.
The largest part of the Islamic texts (the Qur’an, hadith and sira) relate to the treatment of unbelievers, kafirs. Approximately 67% of the Qur’an written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Qur’an of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers.
Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.
Political Islam asks: What is the real jihad? The jihad of inner spiritual struggle, or the jihad of war?
Statistical analysis of the Bukhari hadith (considered by Muslims to be the most authentic of the hadith collections) show that Muhammad repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari, 97% of the jihad references are about war, and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle.
There are 146 references to Hell in the Qur’an. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings ” murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime.
Islam is no “religion of peace”. Islam is primarily a religion of “injustice, intolerance, hatred, and violence.” The fact is, if we non-Muslims were to say about Muslims what the Qur’an says about us, we would be arrested for hate speech. The Qur’an largely preaches discrimination, death, and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Certainly some Muslims will be offended by such statements, but frankly, so what? Judaism and Christianity, the world’s two other major monotheistic religions, have had to face the harshest of scrutiny and criticism for several hundred years which continues to this day. Islam must not be granted any special privileges or be exempt from such treatment – the implications are of tremendous importance.
Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:
“One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…
The statement continues,
Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Apostasy
wildjew says
“It would be interesting to learn where this Brandeis University Muslim Professor stands on the matter of Islamic apostasy….”
Excellent point and perhaps one of the many reasons he does not want to debate R. Spencer.
mortimer says
Excellent for a debate thesis! “Death for apostasy: Yes or No”!
jihad3tracker says
Hello again Mr. Smith,
Currently — (10:20 p.m. Eastern US) — disgraced & embarrassed Lombard prays for a saddled camel to mount, zooming permanently distant from Brandeis.
But if he stays and Mr. Spencer is busy, you could easily prevail in debate also judging by your previous posts here…
Saleem Smith says
Hello jihad3tracker,
I wish…..Spencer is a genius. I am a working class man with a busy life trying to earn a living and maintain health and happiness. But who knows what the future holds.
Huck Folder says
j3t – you mean a ‘buraq’ as in buraq hussein obuMBoy.
jewdog says
Debate Topic:
Resolved: Islamic converts that teach in universities are complete idiots.
Affirmative: Jewdog
Negative: Professor Osama bin Lumbago
umbra says
This is hilarious and could perhaps be a new trend.
Resolved: PhD does not necessarily grant wisdom, objectivity or useful coherent thought.
Affirmative: umbra
Negative: j. lumbard, phd, “assistant” professor.
Saleem Smith says
This Muslim professor would never have changed his mind about Islam anyways. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. If the guy renounced Islam he’d lose his job, his friends, his life. He would have to relocate to Alaska and sell anchovy flavored shaved ice/snow cones in the middle of winter. Happy Easter everybody.
gravenimage says
Saleem Smith wrote:
This Muslim professor would never have changed his mind about Islam anyways. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink…
………………………
My dear Saleem, I don’t believe that Robert Spencer’s main intent in debating Muslim apologists is to change *their* minds—although I’m sure he would be happy to do so—but to expose their bs for the benefit of the audience and anyone watching clips.
That is the main purpose of his debating these creeps.
Hope you are well and safe, Saleem. Always glad to see your posts.
mortimer says
Lumbard ‘debates’ like a Muslim. He makes claims without substantiation and relies on the ad hominem fallacy to distract from it.
1) A thesis statement or main claim must be debatable.
An argument must begin with a debatable thesis or claim. In other words, the thesis must be something that people could reasonably have differing opinions on. If your thesis is something that is generally agreed upon or accepted as fact then there is no reason to try to persuade people.
2) The thesis statement must not be too broad.
If a statement covers a vast array of topics (such as an entire book), it cannot be effectively debated. An entire book is not within the scope of a one-hour debate. A single argument from a book might be limited enough for a debate.
3) The thesis statement must be one of four types: i) claims of fact or definition ii) claims of cause and effect iii) claims about value iv) claims about solutions or policies.
Lumbard did not show at all that he understood how to make a thesis statement. I pity the students of a witheringly haughty professor like this. His tone is unacademic.
RC says
Can you find another academic at Brandeis willing to book the room and host the debate?
I am so sorry to hear about all the awful abuse that is heaped on you and I admire your courage and fortitude in withstanding it.
gravenimage says
@jihadwatchRS any time any place
I will dominate you!
…………………….
Talk about unclear on the concept. Robert Spencer is saying that Islam intends to dominate us—a Muslim then claiming that he will indeed dominate a critic of Islam may not be the best approach…
But what are his alternatives? After attempted intimidation there’s always Taqiyya, of course: “Islam is a religion of peace”, “Qur’an 5:32 is actually about how Islam respects life”, etc, etc—but Robert Spencer is all too well versed in such whitewash and obfuscation.
The only thing that’s left after this is a reasoned, rational argument—but, of course, Islam doesn’t have a leg to stand on in that regard, so apologists’ strategies are limited.
Now that Lumbard (I wonder what his Muslim name is?) seems to have backed out, though, he has one last parting shot: playing the victim. From his Twitter feed:
@jihadwatchRS Publishing a private email exchange is not acceptable by any professional standards.
@jihadwatchRS Now you see exactly why I did not continue emailing with you.
https://twitter.com/JosephLumbard
After all of his insults and sneering supremacism, this is just grimly laughable.
Other nasty stuff on his Twitter feed: the repulsive Nathan Lean claiming that the brave and stalwart Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a champion of women’s rights—apparently, he believes with every other pious Muslim that women should be subjected to FGM, forced marriage, and “Honor Killing”.
He says that Jews”should learn” from the Brandeis treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I *bet he does*. How better for the ‘filthy jooooos’ to learn dhimmitude?
He also excoriates “Founder’s Syndrome”, which is a slap at those who respect the intent of the founding fathers. This is a specialty of hard Leftists and Muslims, who like to believe that we should “go beyond” the Constitution in order to impose Marxism or Shari’ah. *Ugh*.
Bradamante says
Good point — this gentleman (if I may call him that) rather tipped his hand by promising to “dominate”.
I hope he changes his mind and debates. He appears to be someone who actually knows something — by which I mean that although I fully expect Robert Spencer would win the debate, we might actually hear something a bit more interesting from the other side than the usual incoherent spluttering and ad hominem attacks.
Then again, if the twitter exchange is a foretaste, I suppose we shouldn’t get our hopes up.
KrazyKafir says
Convert = empty shell.
Jacqui Daniel says
Hi Robert….this clown ‘made the offer’, claimed he would ‘dominate you’ so please please DO KEEP AT HIM, insist he keeps to his offer…and we can all watch with much pleasure, as we know WHY muslims are even advised by others not to debate with you
All the best from Australia….I was at the symposium
Nonbeliever says
This assclown wants to “dominate” you, like some rabid homosexual rapist. Par for the course from Muslim fanatics, who are always talking about raping someone or something.
What a disgrace for Brandeis! But now we know that this cretin was involved in the abuse of Hirsi Ali. This sleazy sellout has taken the dirty money from the king of Jordan, probably. Brandeis should be audited to see exactly who is paying for what.
voegelinian says
According to a hadith collected by one of the three “sahih” (authoritative) hadith collectors, Abu Dawood:
“If you find anyone doing as the people of Lut did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done” (vol. 3, p. 145, no. 4447).
P.S.: “Lut” is the Arabic rendering of “Lot” (of Sodom and Gomorrah infamy); just as “Lumbard” could be the rendering of “Lombard”, perhaps.
Saleem Smith says
Islamic theology claims that Muhammad the prophet of Islam is the perfect and final prophet of God.
If this is true, then all human beings on earth should bow down and submit to Islamic slavery and sharia authority!
THE QURANIC SANCTION OF SLAVERY
by ex-Muslim M. A. Khan:
The institution of slavery in Islam was formalized in the following Quranic verse, in which Allah distinguishes free human beings or masters, who exercise justice and righteousness, from the dumb, useless and burdensome ones, the slaves:
Allah sets forth (another) Parable of two men: one of them dumb, with no power of any sort; a wearisome burden is he to his master; whichever way he directs him, he brings no good: is such a man equal with one who commands Justice, and is on a Straight Way? [Quran 16:76]
Allah warns the believers against taking the slaves as equal partner in status and in sharing their wealth, lest they have to fear them as anyone else:
…do ye have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e., slaves, captives) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you? Do ye fear them as ye fear each other? [Quran 30:28][3]
Allah recognizes some human beings, namely the masters, as more blessed by Himself than the less favored slaves as part of His divine plan. He warns Muslims against sharing His gifts to them equally with their slaves. Those who would take slaves as equal, warns Allah, would deny Him:
Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others: those more favoured are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favours of Allah? [Quran 16:71]
Allah does not only sanction the institution of slavery, He also gave divine blessing to masters (Muslim men only can own slaves) to have sex with the female slaves:
And those who guard their private parts, Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess—for these surely are not to be blamed [Quran 70:29–30]
And who guard their private parts, except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable [Quran 23:5–6]
Therefore, if there are women amongst the captives or slaves, Muslims are divinely sanctioned to have sex with them as they do with their wives. This verdict of Allah founded the institution of sex-slavery or slave-concubinage in Islam, which was widespread in the pre-colonial Muslim world and continued well into the mid-twentieth century. As far as legal marriage is concerned, there is a limitation of four wives for a man at one time [Quran 4:3], but no such limitation on the number of sex-slaves.
Allah also gave a divine sanction to Muslims for acquiring female slaves for sexual engagement by waging wars against the infidels:
O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war… [Quran 33:50]
Muslims can engage in sex with the captured slave women even if they are married, but not with the married free Muslim women:
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess… [Quran 4:24].
There are other verses in the Quran that talks approvingly of slaves and capturing them in wars. Thus, according to the divine commands of the Islamic God as enshrined in the holy Quran, Muslims are allowed to keep slaves. They can amass slaves by waging wars, have sex with the female slaves, and of course, use them as they wish. For Muslims, having sex with female slaves is as legal as having sex with their married wives. Slavery appears to be one of the most desired divine privileges in Islam, since Allah took the pain of reminding Muslims about this divine right time and again in so many verses.
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/65-khan/809-islamic-slavery-part-1.html
RonaldB says
Hi Saleem,
The article to which you linked did indeed give detailed information on the Islamic practice of capturing and using slaves. However, it focused primarily on female slaves used as sex-slaves.
Here’s a good picture for all those people tempted to look the other way when Islam teaches war and conquest. Male slaves, if taken at all and not just killed outright, will be castrated.
The more prosperous Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, Burundi, and Abu Dubai, import “guest workers” who they treat as basically slaves anyway. I’m sure they would like to do away with the fiction of employer-employee, and simply do away with the pittance they pay their workers altogether. However, the psyche of the Muslim male would not tolerate the presence of a male slave who is capable of having sex. Hence, it is likely that should Muslim countries become able to institute war on non-Muslim countries, they will indeed take slaves on a massive scale, and every one of the males will be gelded.
CGW says
Obviously, this cretin did not make the advised investment of his time prior to challenging Robert by watching the massive videotaped slaughter . . . er, debates in which Robert has engaged with other muslim “defenders” in the past. The internet is littered with the virtual corpses of their pseudo-intellects, their pride and their self-esteem.
Robert, once again you have massively outclassed this Bozo in all of your communications back and forth. As you mentioned, it’s amazing how alike they all turn out to be. In this fellow’s case, we can’t blame it on the culture in which he was raised. Hmmmm, so what’s the common – and I do mean “common” in the basest sense of the word (puns intended) – denominator? Yep, it’s that influence which corrupts the very souls of its adherents – islam.
Awake says
If truth matters, destroying Islam in debate format is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Islam is inherently indefensible.
Taqqiya is Islam’s only refuge.
voegelinian says
“If truth matters, destroying Islam in debate format is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Islam is inherently indefensible.”
While that is eminently true, unfortunately our dominant and mainstream PC MC culture severely handicaps what should be a simple slam-dunk by transforming the fish in a barrel to a vast lake full of slippery eels.
No Fear says
“I will dominate you.”
That sums up Islam very well indeed.
jane smith says
We all know he was trying to set you up and never intended to debate you.
sidney penny says
Here, since you clearly don’t know how to formulate a debate thesis, I will do it for you:
Resolved: The Qur’an teaches warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers
Affirmative: Spencer
Negative: Lumbard
Robert will win hands done .How is Lumbard going to answer all this?
Robert only has to quote from this book with lots of examples to win the debate.
But will be lose the debate because he does not know Persian and Arabic?or that he got his PhD from the wrong place.
Love the argument from authority that many in the academia resort to.
OK, It starts with hate.
And then other things like inciting violence, insulting other religions, promoting religious enmity, disturbing public tranquility, promoting on ground of religion feelings of enmity- ( see below)
The real issue raised by the Petition was not what Muslims believe about the Quran but what behaviour patterns the Quran inculcates in its votaries vis-à-vis the unbelievers.
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/pref1.htm
Let it be realized by everybody concerned that India has always been and remains, the citadel of the most bigoted and bloodthirsty zealotry of Islam. The historical reasons for why it is so, are many. I do not have the time to detail them here. And it will not relax till Hindus learn to knock out its ideological fangs which are rooted in the Quran.
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/chi1.htm
Muslims in India have often sought shelter under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) for preventing every public discussion of their creed in general and of their prophet in particular.
Quite a few publications which examine critically the sayings and doings of the Prophet or other idolized personalities of Islam, have been banned under Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code , as a result of pressure exerted by vociferous, very often violent Muslim protests.
Little did they suspect that the same provisions of the law could be invoked for seeking a ban on their holy book, the Quran.
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/chii4.htm
Now the summary of the petition-but read the whole thing:
2. The respondent (Government) is a public authority having in terms of Section 95 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, read with Sections 153A and 295A Indian Penal Code, a public duty to forfeit to the Government every copy of a book,
which incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India.
3. The Koran, also spelt as Quran, the so-called religious book of the Muslims the world over, written originally in the Arabic and available throughout India in the original Arabic or in its translation in Urdu, Bengali, Hindi, English, etc., is ex facie guilty of each one of the above offences.
4 For example, (see the many examples given in chapter 4 below)(one quoted by the London beheader of Lee Rigby)
4. For example, in Surah 9, ayat 5, the book says, When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
In Surah 48, ayat 29, it says, Muhammad is Allahs apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another Through them Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers.
In surah 49, ayat 15, it says, The true believers are those who have faith in Allah and His apostle and never doubt; and who fight for His cause with their wealth and persons.
In surah 8, ayat 39, it says, Make war on them (idol-worshippers) until idolatry is no more and Allahs religion reigns supreme.
In surah 2, ayat 193, it again says, Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allahs religion reigns supreme.
In surah 2, ayat 216, it has made fighting obligatory for every Muslim.
In surah 9, ayat 41, it exhorts Muslims to march on and fight for the cause of Allah, whether unarmed or well-equipped.
In surah 9, ayat 123, exhorting Muslims to make war on infidels 16 who dwell around you, it says, Let them find harshness in you.
In surah 66, ayat 9, an exhortation is given to the prophet to make war on the unbelievers and deal sternly with them.
In surah 9, ayat 73, it again exhorts the prophet to make war on the unbelievers and to be harsh with them.
In surah 8, ayat 65, it asks the prophet to exhort the Muslims to fight, saying, If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers. More or less the same thing is repeated in ayat 66 of the same surah 8.
In surah 47, ayats 4 to 15, the Koran calls upon the Muslims to strike off the heads of the non-Muslims when the two meet in the battlefield, without minding risking their own lives, for if any of them are killed fighting in the name of Allah they are assured of admission in the paradise.
In surah 8, ayat 12, the Koran exhorts the Muslims to strike off the heads of the non-Muslims and to maim them in every limb.
In surah 69, ayats 30 to 37, the Muslims are asked to capture non-Muslims and bum them in hell-fire after fastening them with chains.
In surah 8, ayats 15 to 18, the Muslims are exhorted not to run away while fighting the non-Muslims and thus incur the wrath of Allah.
In surah 25, ayat 52, the Muslims are exhorted not to yield to the non-Muslims but to fight them strenuously, while according to surah 9, ayat 39, if anybody does not fight, he will be punished by Allah sternly.
In surah 9, ayat 111, the Koran exhorts the Muslims to kill and be killed because, it says that Allah in exchange of promise of heavenly garden has already purchased the lives and the worldly belongings of the Muslims.
In surah 3, ayats 157 and 158 a believer is told that if he is killed while fighting the unbelievers, he will get Allahs mercy all the more.
In surah 8, ayats 59 and 60, the believers are told to muster all the men and the entire cavalry against the unbelievers so that it may strike terror into non-believers.
In surah 9, ayats 2 and 3, the believers are exhorted to proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers.
In surah 9, ayat 29, the Muslims are exhorted to fight the Christians and the Jews until they embrace the true faith, that is, Islam.
In surah 4, ayat 66, it is stated that the prophet does not take people captives; he simply kills them.
In surah 4, ayat 84, the believers are roused to fight.
In surah 29, ayat 6, it says, He that fights for Allahs cause fights for himself.
In surah 9, ayat 14, it exhorts the believers to fight them. Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them
In surah 9, ayats 20 and 21, the believers are assured that those that have embraced the faith and fled their homes and fought for Allahs cause with their wealth and their persons are held in higher regard by Allah. It is they who shall triumph. Their Lord has promised them joy and mercy, and gardens of eternal pleasure where they shall dwell for ever.
In surah 3, ayat 142, a dangerous statement is made in the interrogative, Did you suppose that you would enter paradise before Allah has proved the men who fought for him and endured with fortitude?
5 The book promotes religious enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities in India.
(see the many examples given in chapter 5 below)
For example, in surah 60, ayat 4, it says, We renounce you (i.e. idol-worshippers); enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah only.
In surah 58, ayat 22, it says, You shall find no believers in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His apostle, even though they may be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.
In surah 9, ayat 23, it says Believers! do not befriend your fathers or your brothers, if they choose unbelief in preference to faith. Wrong-doers are those that befriend them.
In surah 3, ayat 28, it says, Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful; he that does this has nothing to hope for from Allah.
In surah 3, ayat 118, it says, Believers! do not make friends with any men other than your own people.
In surah 4, ayat 144, it says, Believers! do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourself?
In surah 9, ayat 7, it says, Allah and His apostle repose no trust in idolaters. In surah 8, ayat 55, It says, The basest creatures in the sight of Allah are the faithless who will not believe.
In surah 25, ayat 55, it says, Yet the unbelievers worship idols which can neither help nor harm them. Surely the unbeliever is his Lords enemy.
In surah 5, ayat 72, it says, He that worships other Gods besides Allah shall be forbidden Paradise and shall be cast into the fire of Hell. None shall help the evil-doers.
In surah 9, ayat 28, it says, Believers! know that the idolaters are unclean.
In surah 5, ayat 14, it says, Therefore, we stirred among them (i.e. the Christians) enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection
In surah 5, ayat 64, it says, That which Allah has revealed to you will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many of them (i.e. the Jews). We have stirred among them, (i.e. the Christians) enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection
In surah 5, ayat 18, it says. The Jews and the Christians say, We are the children of Allah and His loved ones. Say, Why then does He punish you for your sins
In surah 5, ayat 51, it says, Believers! take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their members. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.
6 The book insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India.
(see the many examples given in chapter 6 below )
For example, in surah 5 ayat 17, it says, Unbelievers are those who declare, Allah is the Messiah (i.e. the Christ), the son of Mary. Say, Who could prevent Allah from destroying the Messiah, the son of Mary, together with his mother and all the people of the earth?
In surah 4, ayat 157, it says, They denied the truth and uttered a monstrous falsehood against Mary. They declared, We have put to death the Messiah Jesus, the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah. They did not kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did.
In surah 98, ayat 6, it says, Me unbelievers among the people of the Book (i.e. the Christians and the Jews) and the pagans shall bum for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
In surah 68, ayats 10 to 13, it says, Give no heed to the disbelievers; they desire you to overlook their doings that they may overlook yours. Nor yield to the wretch of many oaths, the mischief-making slanderer, the opponent of good, the wicked transgressor, the bully who is of doubtful birth to boot.
In surah 22, ayats 19 to 22, it says. Garments of fire have been prepared for unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.
In surah 22, ayats 56 and 57, it says, Those that have embraced the true faith and done good work shall enter the gardens of delight, but the unbelievers who have denied Our revelations shall receive an ignominious punishment.
In surah 5, ayats 36 and 37, it says, As for the unbelievers, if they offered all that the earth contains and as much besides to redeem themselves from the torment of the Day of Resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them. Theirs shall be a woeful punishment.
In surah 15, ayat 2, it says, The day will surely come when the unbelievers will wish that they were Muslims.
In surah 72, ayats 14 and 15, it says, Some of us are Muslims and some are wrong-doers. Those that embrace Islam pursue the right path, but those that do wrong shall become the fuel of fire.
In surah 41, ayat 33, it says. And who speaks better than he who calls others to the service of Allah, does what is right, and says, I am a Muslim?
In surah 4, ayat 125, it says, And who has a nobler religion than the one who surrenders himself to Allah?
In surah 3, ayat 85, it says, He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come, he will be one of the last.
In surah 8, ayat 38, it says, Tell the unbelievers that if they mend their ways (i.e. embrace Islam) their past will be forgiven but if they persist in sin (i.e. idol-worshipping) let them reflect upon the fate of their forefathers.�
In surah 31, ayat 13, it says, Luqman admonished his son. My son, he said, serve no other God instead of Allah, for idolatry is an abominable sin.
In surah 29, ayat 41, it says, The false Gods which the idolaters serve besides Allah may be compared to the spiders cobweb. Surely the spiders is the frailest of all dwellings if they but know it.
In surah 37, ayats 22 to 25, it says, But We shall say, Call the sinners, their wives and the idols which they worshipped besides Allah, and lead them to the path of Hell. Keep them there for questioning – But what has come over you that you cannot help one another?
In surah 7, ayat 173, it makes the Muslims say, Our forefathers were indeed idol-worshippers, but will you destroy us, their descendants, on account of what the followers of falsehood did?
In surah 21, ayats 66 and 67, it says, He answered, Would you then worship that, instead of Allah, which can neither help nor harm you? Shame on you and on your idols! Have you no sense?
In surah 21, ayats 98 to 100, it says, You and all your idols shall be the fuel of Hell; therein you shall all go down. Were they true Gods, your idols would not go there; but in it they shall abide for ever. They shall groan with pain and be bereft of hearing.
In surah 6, ayats 22 and 23, it says. On that day when We gather them all together, We shall say to the idolaters: Where are your idols now, those whom you supposed to be your Gods?� They will not argue, but will say, By Allah, our Lord, we have never worshipped idols.
In surah 6, ayats 40 and 41, it makes the believers say, Say, When Allahs scourge smites you and the Hour of Doom suddenly overtakes you, will you call on any but Allah to help you? Answer me, if you are men of truth. No, on Him alone you will call, and if He pleases, He will relieve your affliction. Then you will forget your idols.
In surah 6, ayat 149 it says, The idolaters will say, Had Allah pleased, neither we nor our fathers would have served other Gods besides Him.
In surah 2, ayat 221, it says, You shall not wed pagan women, unless they embrace the faith. A believing slave-girl is better than an idolatress, although she may please you. Nor shall you wed idolaters, unless they embrace the faith. A believing slave is better than an idolater, although he may please you. These call you to Hell-fire, but Allah calls you, by His will, to Paradise and to forgiveness.
In surah 24, ayat 3, it says, The adulterer may marry only an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress may marry an adulterer or an idolater.
In surah 5, ayats 116 to 118, there is given this imaginary dialogue between Allah and Jesus Christ, which is highly insulting to the Christians: Then Allah will say, Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind, worship me and my mother as Gods besides Allah? Glory to You, he will answer, How could I say that to which I have no right? If I had ever said so, You would have surely known it. You know what is in my mind, but I cannot tell what is in Yours. You alone know what is hidden. I spoke to them of nothing except what You bade me. I say, Serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I watched over them whilst living in their midst, and ever since You took me to You, You Yourself have been watching over them. You are the witness of all things. They are Your own bondsmen. It is for You to punish or to forgive them. You are the Mighty, the Wise one.
In surah 25, ayats 17 to 19, there is given another imaginary conversation, this time between Allah, the idols and the idol-worshippers, which is highly insulting to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. On the day when He assembles them with all their idols, He will say: Was it you who misled My servants, or did they wilfully go astray? They will answer: Allah forbid that we should choose other guardians besides You. You gave them and their fathers the good things of life, so that they forgot Your warnings and thus incurred destruction. Then to the idolaters Allah will say: Your idols have denied your charges. They cannot avert your doom, nor can they help you. Those of you who have done wrong shall be sternly punished.
7 While the Koran abounds with saying which incite violence, insult the religious beliefs of other communities and even exhort the Muslims to kill and murder non-Muslims, the problem is aggravated by yet another fact which has been true in the past and is universally true in our own times that unlike other communities Muslims are, and even fresh converts tend to become, highly orthodox people and follow the sayings of the book with a fanatical zeal with the result that whichever country has their sizable number amongst its population can never have peace on its soil.
(This was said in 1985 and it is still true today 2014!)
8. The offending expressions contained in the Koran and quoted in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 above are not so offensive in their translation in which they are so quoted as they are in the original verses in Arabic or in Urdu, the very sound of whose inimitable symphony not only sends the Muslims to tears and ecstasy but arouses in them the worst communal passions and religious fanaticism which have manifested themselves in murder, slaughter, loot, arson, rape and destruction or desecration of holy places in historical times as also in contemporary period not only in India but almost all over the world.
Columbia says
Lumbard sounds as insane as Joseph Massad and Rashid Khalidi at Columbia.
sidney penny says
Here is another one that Robert could use in his debate from another great author on Islam.:
The problem is not Muslims, the problem is Islam.
The founding texts as well as the history of Islam testify to the profound link between iconoclasm and the basic injunction of the Prophet, viz. that “until ye believe in Allah alone, enmity and hate shall reign between us” (Q.60:4), i.e. between Muslims and unbelievers.
I can understand that a peace-loving Muslim who is comfortable with religious pluralism would have problems with this quotation, and generally with the unpleasant record of the founder and role model of his religion.
Having wrestled with the Catholic faith in which I grew up, I know from experience that outgrowing one’s religion can be a long and painful process. Regarding a Muslim’s reluctance to face these facts, I would therefore counsel compassion and patience.
Vandalism Sanctified Vandalism Sanctified By Scripture
KOENRAAD ELST
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?213030-0
Anwar Shaikh on Islamic terror
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/AnwarShaikh.html
Anwar Shaikh rightly noted, “The problem is not Muslims, the problem is Islam”.
http://www.islam-watch.org/anwarsheikh/index.html
jihad3tracker says
Thank you for these linked resources.
Let me again mention 2 others, and add a third — sites with dozens of paths to further knowledge : http://www.citizenwarrior.com / http://www.inquiryintoislam.com / http://www.thereligionofpiece.com.
Pass these forward to your circle of family and friends, telling each one of them to contact several more — on and on — the “chain letter” strategy.
voegelinian says
That’s a specious distinction. Islam only is a problem because Muslims insist on putting it into mendacious, and bloody, practice.
Tim says
Well it’s easy to see why he converted to Islam, and why that “religion” appeals to him so much. He’s got the immature, aggressive mindset for it and will do well in a jihad mission. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a closet pedophile as well. Women abusers and pedophiles seek kinship in Islam.
jihad3tracker says
The hands on my clock indicate 2:40 a.m. — I just woke up to see how our tango dancing with Professor Lumbard has developed.
Honestly, you have to feel a bit sorry for this pathetic schlub, right ? Yes ? Can I get a thumbs up here ? Hello — JW readers — hello ?
Twostellas says
So much for his boast of dominating . :/ So lame.
mark says
If he thinks that a single topic is not enough for him to show the “inaccuracies” or Robert’s book he should offer a series of debates, each of predefined issues in question.
Ayatrollah says
Send him an email, saying he needs to debate to protect Islam. I did
lumbard@brandeis.edu
Buraq says
Ooooh, I will dominate! Could he be a friend of Rehab’s!
Anyway, Lumbard is a baggy-trousered, red-nosed, wire-wigged clown!
duh_swami says
It’s not too complicated. Joe is simply a religious supremacist bigot, as are many.
There is no way for him to avoid that, but he could handle his bigotry a little better. He comes off like all he has is bluster. That really does not look good for a university professor, and self claimed expert. It’s interesting that he and Aslan, act professional until they tweet, and expose themselves as frauds. That’s kind of funny actually.
duh_swami says
By the way…Happy Easter…Go light on those chocolates. If you can find the blue egg you win a prize. I never got to go to an Easter egg hunt, but I did go on a snipe hunt once. If you don’t know what a snipe hunt is, you’re better off not knowing. But if anyone offers to take you on a snipe hunt, refuse the offer.
Anyway this is a significant day for Christians, so go to church and be happy.
Tradewinds says
swami I recall a snipe hunt many years ago when I was a kid. There are no snipe!
Happy Easter to you. It’s too bad we have to deal with clowns like Lumbard now in America. What’s with all the Mohammedans wriggling out from the woodwork? Why can’t they stay in Yemen or some other Islamic paradise?
somehistory says
The word snipe is a true word for wading birds. The snipe hunt was meant as a trick, but some have come to believe that snipe do not exist.
Sort of like going to submarine races.
It’s really too bad islam isn’t as harmless.
Tradewinds says
Goal of Islam in America:
1. In 1998 Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s co-founder and longtime Board
Chairman, said: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other
faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest
authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on
Earth.”
After he received unwelcome publicity as a result of this
statement, Ahmad denied saying it, several years after the fact.
However, the original reporter, Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus,
stands by her story.
2. CAIR’s spokesman Ibrahim Hooper once said: “I wouldn’t want to
create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the
United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
“Islam must dominate and not be dominated.” – Muhammed
Gee, I wonder why Lumbard specifically used the word “dominate.”
Dennis Trisker says
Dear Prof. Lombard , I can’t imagine why an educated man would change from one religion to another. Is it the fear of being a free thinker, is it the fear of living a life in which you must make your own decisions? Here, I live in India. Many of my Christian friends and Muslim friends follow neither Jesus nor Allah.
duh_swami says
If your Muslim friends do not follow Allah, then they are not really Muslims. Real Muslims are pious with Allah. Any that are not pious are closet apostates. There is nothing wrong with a closet apostate except they are forced by circumstances and location to stay in the closet.
Larry S says
Lombard certainly comes across as a slimeball. However, I would say Robert, at least as an opening gambit, should have come up with more neutral wording than he did; viz.
… you haven’t proposed a debate thesis. Do you know how one is properly formulated?
A simple, “We need a debate thesis” might have contributed to a more productive conversation.
Reality Check says
Joseph Lumbard is a complete nobody and the only way he will go down in history is through his association with Robert Spencer’s name. His place in the notoriety archives is guaranteed unless he loses in the cut-throat competition with similar assholes vying for the central niche in the Gallery of Sure-to-be-Forgotten Islamophiles – and trust me, the competition is really hard. He may not win at all.
He probably jumped on the Islamic bandwagon because he thought it was the stronger one of the two. Had Islam been weaker now, he would have probably chosen to become famous through an anti-Islamic stance. He comes across not as a genuine believer but fame whore and if the price for fame is aligning himself with the teaching of a 7th-century road bandit, rapist and pedophile, so be it.
From his profile in the Brandeis faculty guide:
“Joseph E. B. Lumbard is a former advisor for interfaith affairs to the Jordanian Royal Court, and has traveled the world to engage in interfaith dialogue.”
http://www.brandeis.edu/facultyguide/person.html?emplid=40bc11b9d4af8a817ebf1bd616c3bada0f17b29a
Well, this says it all – a paid American male whore of a Muslim royal family. That’s an interesting career for a former altar boy brought up within the Episcopal Church but I suppose the Episcopal Church was not willing to pay.
http://www.holosforum.org/v3n1/lumbard.html
Jan says
Why did Lumbard convert to this vile cult ?
Easy. He’s an arrogant, bullying dickhead, and islam is tailor made for such as he.
Tradewinds says
So right Jan. Same goes for Doug Hooper.
Bradamante says
No kidding. Have you seen his picture on his wikipedia page? I showed my friend. She said, “Yikes — crazy eyes again!” (We’ve been noticing this is a pattern among converts to Islam and apologists for Islam.)
Tradewinds says
Devout Muslim = Certifiably Insane
voegelinian says
“I propose that we employ something along the lines of the Lincoln/Douglas debate format.” — Prof. Yusuf al-Lumbardo
Ah, Lincoln; that other Abrahamic whom Muslims can only comprehend from without, like primates gazing on the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey, shrieking, and throwing bones at it.
“I prefer in person debates, as this allows for the ambiance to be sensed by the broader audience when watching a video.” — Prof. Yusuf al-Lumbardo
What other amenities for the feng shui and décor would make Yusuf feel more at home? Persian incense and lavender silk curtains?
voegelinian says
By the way, the name “Lumbard” undoubtedly is a variant on “Lombard”, a Euro-Asiatic people (aka, the “Langobards”) who migrated into the Mediterranean area of the Roman Empire and began to dominate in politics there at just about the same time as Islam began to rise. I’m hazy on history of the matter and a little rusty on my Gibbons, but my understanding is that they had quite a few skirmishes with the nascent Arabic upstarts in the ensuing 7th and perhaps 8th century.
Since Prof. Yusuf al-Langoburdu is a revert, perhaps psycho-culturally something is going on in that tangled, tortured viscera of oozing darkness of his called the Mohammedan heart & mind whereby he is tapping into the cultural DNA, so to speak (to anticipate and cut off at the pass dumbledoresarmy who might suddenly pipe up to chastise me for some racial straw man she has imagined) of his people — not those who valiantly fought against the scourge of Mahound but those who crossed over to the dark side as toadying dhimmis, or (as in his case) worse.
logdon says
How to debate a Liberal.
Clegg is leader of the Liberal Democrat Party in Britain.
He is pro giving everything away to an unelected entity in Europe.
He is also pro immigration, pro Islam and as dhimmi as it gets.
This is a broad argument and Islam isn’t necessarily in the frame but from his opener on climate change you know precisely what he stands for.
Watch as Farage rips Clegg apart.
By the way a snap post debate poll gave Farage a seventy percent approval. Clegg got around 25 percent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd9rsmD4HiM
Forget Cameron and the political establishment, this is the real Britain.
jihad3tracker says
Hello logdon —
Readers of JW cannot possibly take time to search out the best counter-jihad evidence.
We need the eyes of fellow freedom fighters — especially those in the Mother Country and Scandinavia — who are struggling to right sinking ships.
Frank Scarn says
Farage is good as far as he goes. And he’s a damned sight better than anything in charge of Britain today. To boot, he has a chance of getting some further recognition for his party.
But Farage too avoids the Muslim issue. Perhaps he agrees with the counter-jihad, but he’s awfully quiet about it.
The real McCoy for a Britain First policy is Paul Weston and his British Freedom Party. Check out some of his videos. This one, Paul Weston on Multiculturalism, is pretty good,
Reality Check says
Nigel Farage is a total idiot and I wish him to go to hell with no possibility of return.
He is the same person who stood behind the deplorable anti-Bulgarian and anti-Romanian campaign of 2013-2014, which was generously supported by “Daily Mail” in terms of word count.
Farage and “Daily Mail” went out of their way to portray Bulgarians and Romanians as the filthiest paupers of Europe, who are desperate to go to Britain and to drain the British welfare system.
I am Bulgarian and I have no words to describe my humiliation when I read those demonizing articles about my nationality. “Daily Mail” went so far as to illustrate them with pictures of some Gypsy slums, which are in no way indicative of our way of life – not to mention those ugly Gypsy mugs that were passed for Bulgarians.
We are white European Christians but Farage doesn’t want us in Britain and neither does “Daily Mail”. Shall I mention all the vile comments left by ordinary Brits, who said they did not want us there? Shall I mention the name-calling, though we hadn’t even arrived yet?
You don’t want white European Christians? FINE! Keep your Muslims then! This the precise reason I said under another article that I wished Britain to experience Muslim rule directly – and the longer, the better!
Britain delayed the liberation of my country from the Muslims by one-hundred years in the 19th century anyway because it considered its commercial interests more important than the freedom of some obscure Balkan Christians. Then, one-hundred years later, it sold us to Stalin who destroyed us even more.
I have nothing but contempt for Britain as it never takes the side of the Christians in Eastern Europe. You’ve made yourself a nice little bed with Muslims, now lie in it! And as for us, we’ll stay away from Britain since you made it clear that we are so unwanted!
southeuropean says
R.C
Your right about many things,but the British dont look at the Bulgarians as Gypsies. They look at them as Russians. Unfortunatelly, the west still has the paranoia from the Russians and when choosing between Islam and Russia,they choose Islam. That was the reason why were the Brits on the side of the Ottomans in the Crimea war in the 19th century. But let me remind u that even when the Russians were communists,they never pushed tge buttons and even more,they never organized a terrorist action on the american soil. Imagine what could happen if ISIS,IRAN,AL NUSRA or Hamas had the buttons of the nukes.I know many Bulgarians and it doesn’t matter that they’r white. It does matter that they have a strive to be free and every one of them worths more than any monarchist.
catherine says
Well done……………..and a good reminder of how bullies work. Thanks…….I would have been interested in either of your debate thesis topics. And of course it can’t be debated! Islam flourishes on everyone being silent and fearful.
voegelinian says
Aside from silence and fear, there’s a third thing that massively enables Islamic taqiyya-cum-dawa: the PC MC disinformation of sincerely starry-eyed Useful Idiots helping Muslims because they perceive them to be ethnic underdogs constantly jeopardized and threatened by evil white bigotry.
Huck Folder says
Like others, I think that these answers by Robert, don’t encourage a taqiyyameister into a debate. Well, some people with the appropriate psychology might have taken the bait:
“Do you know how one is properly formulated? If not, I will send you some suggestions. Let me know.”
“Again: do you know how to formulate a debate thesis? If not, as I said, and apparently you do not, I will suggest some possible ones.”
Some more background:
“…Lumbard was brought up within the Episcopal Church, serving as an altar boy. In his teenage years he lost interest [in sex?] and he was introduced to Islam when a sophomore [impressionable] at George Washington University through professor SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR. He converted to Islam a year and a half later.
“I realized that EVERYTHING that I had been searching for within Christianity was also available within Islam…[supremacism and submission?] and that I would be FOLLOWING THE MESSAGE OF JESUS just as fully within the Islamic tradition.” [Really?]
Any Christians here care to take that on? O/T? More about impressionable rookie Lumbard’s mentor and dawameister NASR, a veritable polymath:
“NASR helped with the PLANNING and EXPANSION of ISLAMIC and Iranian studies ACADEMIC PROGRAMS in several universities such as Princeton, the University of Utah, and the University of Southern California.”
“First Muslim and first non-Western scholar to deliver the prestigious Gifford Lectures” [On what, I wonder?]
“He was an advisor for the award-winning, PBS-broadcast documentary Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet (2002), produced by Unity Productions Foundation” [But PBS refused to show “Islam and Islamists” – dhimmis!]
“He was nominated and won King Faisal Foundation award, but his prize was withdrawn upon the prize knowledge [sic] of his being a Shia. He was notified of winning the prize in 1979 but later the prize was withdrawn with no explanation.”
That lends some credibility to prof. Frederick Lawrence of Brandeis being an ignorant dimwit, if all the sods of Soddy Barbaria didn’t know Nasr was a self-flagellating Shia.
Further O/T (but could provide a chuckle and throwaway line for Robert), one of Nasr’s many books was “Science and Civilization in Islam” which is remarkable at 388 pages, considering how little science and even less civilization there is in mohammedanism.
It was difficult to find reviews at first (none on Amazon even though it is a runaway success at #1,562,924 in Books). It is published by Kazi Publications, Inc. (January 1, 2007) – btw Kazi in Britain means ‘shithouse’. Reviews:
“This is an informative yet aggravating book, and I had a hard time deciding how to rate it. Seyyed Hossein Nasr is a very knowledgeable man with what I consider to be some bizarre views, [mohammedanism!] and here he is constantly at work to FORCE said views upon the reader.”
“Science and Civilization in Islam, while having an interesting thesis, has many problems. The most significant one is its vagueness. For instance, dates are rarely given. Changes in outlook are not pinpointed, merely hinted at. Works and achievements are not dated, nor are the lives of many of the principle figures. Nasr rarely gives examples of the ideas of his subjects, and instead settles for listing important figures and the names of their works. His explanations are often vague, and filled with abstract language that is undefined and difficult to follow. Nasr also tends to equate the search for any kind of knowledge (wisdom) with science.”
“Nasr’s work on science is discomforting for many. His defense of traditional sciences is seen by his critiques [sic] as a nostalgic appeal to tradition with no real consequences for the current problems surrounding modern science. His unflinching attack on the philosophical foundations of modern science makes the modernists uneasy both in the East and the West. Furthermore, the evolutionary historians of science consider his notion of Islamic science TOO RELIGIOUS [that’s the whole idea] and metaphysical, suggesting instead a linear course of scientific evolution as if SCIENCE WITHOUT SUPPOSITIONS were to be possible. Part of this perturbed situation comes from Nasr’s rigorous assertion of the religious view of the cosmos at a time when religion as a valid source of knowledge is no longer taken seriously even by its sincere adherents. Sailing against the grain, Nasr offers no apologies for his resolute stance and insists on questioning the received meaning of science.”
If anyone is really interested (to debunk that dreck in future), here is a long winded ‘brief’ review from Fordham [JESUIT!] University, New York.:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/nasr.asp
“To the Muslim, history is a series of ACCIDENTS that in no way affect the nontemporal principles of Islam.”
ACCIDENTS – inshallah?
Hope some of this helps with ammo for the future!
Clare says
The first sentence of your comment is odd (not to mention your last sentence, “hope some of this helps…” – helps feed your arrogance maybe):
“Like others, I think that these answers by Robert, don’t encourage a taqiyyameister into a debate. Well, some people with the appropriate psychology might have taken the bait:”
What others? I don’t read any other comments that are like this. Where’d you get the idea that the challenger’s job is to encourage a participant to debate after the debate challenge is accepted? Robert wrote: “…I challenged him to a debate. He readily accepted, saying: “anytime any place. I will dominate you!”
Lumbard, poor baby, needed ‘a Robert Spencer encouragement response’? Yeah, maybe if you are a high school sophomore. Lumbard is a professor at a university; he lowered the bar by not just simply answering Mr. Spencer’s question. Lumbard did not converse with Mr. Spencer as an intellect on equal footing. Lumbard to Spencer: “…in response to your desire for a debate,…” This in itself is dishonest, too. A challenge for a debate is not a desire.
You infer that the challenge was to “bait” Lumbard. You misconstrue the purpose of having a debate. A debate with scholars is a forum for the truth to be brought forth so that the hearers can take an informed position. Lumbard played a cat and mouse game with the truth and continued in this vein until finally he sunk himself by lying.
Perhaps this is the debate. We have seen all we need to know now about Lumbard’s formation in Islam.
Huck Folder says
I think you made a point there Clare, what people receive as a message isn’t always what we send. You seem highly offended by my criticism, which another poster has also echoed. I don’t want to attack Robert, as my posts make very clear. Those two replies by Robert might be counter-productive, if they give Lumbard the wrong prod. I believe other recipients quite likely would have taken a different approach when receiving comments like that. To some they would be a challenge, to others they sound like put-downs, while the idea was to arrange a public debate.
“You misconstrue the purpose of having a debate.” I’m not sure what I construed. I wanted the debate to happen very much, and I still do. I don’t want Lumbard to have any excuse to beg off like Danion of Loonwatch. I totally agree that a clear, well defined topic should be agreed upon, as well as the venue, form of debate etc.
I think Lumbard’s Tweets are more childish than professorial, and further highlight Brandeis’s moral and intellectual deficit. But they were a golden opportunity and I hope that isn’t lost because Lumbard’s supremacism was challenged.
I couldn’t do what Robert does, but I will do whatever I can, with limited resources and computer skills, to help him. Since ‘all of us knows more than any of us’, I might get lucky and turn up some fact or statement which Robert could use. More power to him! He has to check anything anyone posts here, back to its original source before he uses it, and I also try to trace sources back before I quote.
“hope some of this helps…” – helps feed your arrogance maybe):”
sounds like an aggressive statement. You could have asked for a clarification, rather than making that assertion.
That statement of mine referred to the extra facts I tracked down, which weren’t in the original article, not the comments about formulating theses. My information, which anyone else could find, was about Lumbard’s groomer, a much older, and very intelligent professor. Nasr mastered not only religion, philosophy and languages, but also Physics, hence his being called a polymath. I believe he could have had an extremely powerful influence on an impressionable 17 or 18 year old, who was possibly carrying some ‘baggage’ we don’t know about. If Nasr told Lumbard: “I owe EVERYTHING to islam.”, or something similar, Lumbard might have fallen for that.
So I followed Nasr’s Google history back to one of his books, which touches on another hot topic with islamists. I had to search further for reviews, and published quotes from them.
I was not happy to make those remarks on theses, but I would let Robert comment on the usefulness or otherwise of my data on Nasr. If he doesn’t have the equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica on islamism and islamists I would be amazed, but there’s always one more fact/quote/idea or compilation.
voegelinian says
Clare is right in principle; but unfortunately, in this “battle space of the war of ideas” (as Frank Gaffney has aptly put it) we are often dealing with people whose PC MC neurosis compromises their ability to behave as mature adults. Sometimes one has to do unpleasant things that go against one’s better inclination in terms of principles in order to get things done — in this case, figuring out clever ways to mollycoddle and “handle” the precious ego of Prof. Lumbard in order to maneuver him into cooperation.
Clare says
In reply to:
Huck Folder
April 21, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate the time you took.
Um, I didn’t feel anything, especially not “seem highly offended.” I simply read the words that you wrote, that’s all. You remind me of my older brother. We went around and around for years. I can’t say that it was fun, or that I learned a lot, but I really appreciated him, too.
Clare says
In reply to:
voegelinian
I take your point, but I think, that once the challenge was accepted, Robert shifted into third gear and began the debate with the opposing side, Lumbard, right away. Even given direct question and answer, Lumbard did not, or could not, be straight up with the preliminary layout of the debate. Robert won the duel before the duel took place. Beforehand even, Lumbard sent emails to Robert that were, well, guttural. Lumbard showed in advance that he was not one of good will.
I’ve seen Robert discern persons in many of his debates and in his interviews as a teacher. To one he will be in first and second gear debate or teaching. To another, he might start out in third, and quickly go to fourth with fifth gear waiting in the wings as the debate or teaching progresses.
I think in this case, Lumbard gave the appearance to be on an equal footing for a debate (with a deal of bravado) but within just a few parries via email, not yet in person even, he crashed because of his disingenuous character.
Lawrence says
Dear Fellow JW readers and our esteemed MC Robert,
First of all, Happy Easter !
I just had the pleasure of submitting the following letter to former Episcopal altar boy Joseph Lumbard, now Chair of the Brandeis Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Department.
“Dear Professor Lumbard,
I note with disappointment , but not surprise, that you are avoiding a debate with Mr. Robert Spencer.
Today’s jihad Watch blog details your many tweets and e-mails which are mainly ad hominem attacks or silly “arguments to authority” against perhaps the leading Islamic Scholar of our time. Mr. Robert Spencer has published over 13 Islam related books, several of which have made the New
York Times best-seller list, in addition to publishing scores of scholarly papers and treatises. His voice is so effective that he is a leading threat to Islamic Jihad, stealth or otherwise, as you undoubtedly understand.
“Everyone knows” that scholarly debates require a well defined thesis, yet in your offering to Mr. Spencer, it seems that you cannot decide upon even one thesis, even though your opponent is graciously offering to let you choose. Is that the best you can do ?
Why not ? What are you afraid of ? Could it be that you might have realized that you would be unable to counter any argument on just about any subject regarding Islamic texts, history or culture ? Do you believe that the only way to “defeat” people such as Mr. Spencer is to avoid them ?
What about Truth;where do you stand in the search for Truth ?
I live in ———, Massachusetts and I know quite a few Brandeis alumni. You can be sure that I will tell them that they have an academic coward at their Alma Mater named Joseph Lumbard.
Of course, in my opinion, you could rectify this issue by choosing a debate thesis and setting up a debate on your bucolic campus.
Sincerely,
Lawrence————
Tradewinds says
Brandeis is about as low as a toadstool now. Filled with Leftists and Muslims who deny free speech about Islam. Sad that 13 years after 9/11 there are Americans kowtowing to Muslims. Shameful.
citycat says
There no moral substance in the Koran, nor any holy wisdom.
The Koran, encouraging booty as the reward, has the absurd promise of 72 as the basis on which the mind can forever ponder.
People will believe the most ridiculous ideas, really to cloud or dissolve the fear of death, before daring to use their mind to get out of such craziness.
Not that it is easy, especially in Islam, to do so.
RodSerling says
This Lumbard clown is a joke. When he’s not busy trying to get opponents of FGM blacklisted, he publishes New Agey b.s. and cites Loonwatch as an authoritative source.
Joseph Lumbard @JosephLumbard
@TorAndreKongelf @HRWatcher1 @Ms_Miranda1 I believe u r looking for this on dhimmi: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/more-proof-that-robert-spencer-is-an-intellectual-huckster/ … Many more links in article
4:16 PM – 19 Apr 2014
https://twitter.com/JosephLumbard/status/457658961270165504
Apparently Lumbard, who claims to know Arabic, doesn’t know the meanings of the terms dhimma and dhimmi.
Something for Lumbard to consider:
An Islamic Perspective on Governance Zafar Iqbal and Mervyn K. Lewis (2009) Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham U.K. pp. 75-76 “…the Holy Qur’an refers to Jews and Christians as ahl al-kitab, the People of the Book, because they belong to ‘revealed religions’ (Stork, 1999, p. 16). Although in one of the verses in the Holy Qur’an they are reserved Allah’s curse for stubbornly rejecting Faith (2:159), generally they are afforded forgiveness (4:153), praise for devotion to learning (5:82) and placed in the ranks of the righteous (3:113-114). Under Islamic Law, People of the Book are accorded the status of dhimmis (non-Muslims protected by a treaty of surrender), a position which, like the Arabic word itself, means ‘protected’ or ‘guilty’. They are protected because they have been recipients of genuine revelations (the Book) and share common religious beliefs with Muslims such as God, Angels and the Last Day. On these grounds, they received the status of ‘protected minorities’ (ahl adh-dhimma). At the same time, People of the Book are guilty of not accepting Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a prophet, and having misinterpreted (or distorted) the revelations that they did receive (al-Mawardi, [1405 AH] 1985). There are differences, for example, on the Oneness of God, the Prophets, Revealed Books, lawful food, inheritance, etc., that pose difficulties for marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims and for the bringing up of children.” “As dhimmis, Jews and Christians may live in Muslim states and practice their religions, but under certain conditions and not quite as equals with Muslims.[…]”
I have much, much more evidence, having thoroughly refuted Lumbard’s trusted source “Danios” of “Loonwatch”, on this issue.
Tradewinds says
My God – a college professor who cites the mentally-challenged hatemongers at loonwatch? It’s unbelievable. Someone should write a letter to the president of Brandeis about this charlatan posing as a college professor.
RodSerling says
More on Lumbard:
One of Lumbard’s publications is “Submission, Faith and Beauty: The Religion of Islam. , (Hayward, 2007, Zaytuna Institute, 2008)”
Ah, the Zaytuna “Institute.” Here’s some damning info about Lumbard’s publishing pals, i.e., outright Islamists and anti-Semites:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/new-york-times-whitewashes-islamist-zaytuna-college/
Hamza Yusuf “had called Judaism a “most racist religion” in 1995.”
Lumbard had no problems with collaborating with the Zaytuna Islamists and anti-Semites.
Hamza Yusuf admits Muhammad married a child (Aisha):
Tradewinds says
“One of Lumbard’s publications is “Submission, Faith and Beauty: The Religion of Islam”
What a JOKE! Islam is ugly, disgusting, venomous and genocidal.
Islam is NOT a religion. It’s a mass-murder political ideology masquerading as a religion. Islam is a “religion” for Puff Adders, Black Mambas, and Cobras. Islam – the religion of SNAKES. Lumbard the convert fits right in with vipers as does Doug Hooper and Head Snake John Esposito along with former nun Karen Armstrong. Vipers all.
Angemon says
“I will not debate without a thesis — that is a license for you to slide off-topic and spend the whole debate on personal abuse, as I know you will anyway.
Here, since you clearly don’t know how to formulate a debate thesis, I will do it for you
[…]
“But I sent that email last Tuesday, and aside from a few more snipes from him on Twitter, that was the last I heard from Joseph Lumbard.”
He’s probably too busy circle-jerking with his friends, gloating about how Robert refused to debate him. Robert is right: if there’s no set subject to debate then it’s not a debate but a soapbox (seems that the only positive thing i can say about mr. Lumbard is that he doesn’t hide behind the lame “debating him would be giving him a platform to spread his hate speech on” excuse, even though it may be simply out of ignorance and stupidity), but Lumbard can simply twist the story and say “well, i challenged him and he started to go on about details and technicalities, it’s obvious he’s too scared to debate, blah, blah, blah”.
RodSerling says
Hm. Looks like Lumbard may have made a false claim about Ibn Kathir’s commentary on 2:256 (“no compulsion”).
According to Sam Shamoun, who was debating another apologist a long time ago, a fuller version of Ibn Kathir’s tafsir–which as far as I’m aware isn’t available on the internet–comments that the verse was abrogated by others such as 48:16, 9:73, and 9:123. (Shamoun pointed out that the apologist had quoted an abridged version that cut out Ibn Kathir’s remarks about the abrogation of the verse).
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/taqiyyah.htm
Here’s Shamoun, quoting from the more extended tafsir [I quote from the relevant portion, referring to the abrogation, it as it appears]:
“[…] BUT, THIS VERSE IS ABROGATED BY THE VERSE OF “FIGHTING”: <You shall be called to fight against a people given to great warfare, then you shall fight them, or they shall surrender" (Al-Fath: 16). Allah also says: (At-Tauba:73), and He says: , (At-Tauba:123).
Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: “Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains”, meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise. (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 253 to 286, Surah Al-Imran, ayat 1 to 92, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1999: First Edition], Part 3, pp. 37-38; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)”
END QUOTE
Lumbard claims that Ibn Kathir notes that the verse 2:256 is not abrogated. I suspect Lumbard may be mistaken. It might be worth tracking down the original references (Shamoun’s and Lumbard’s) for those who have the time and opportunity to access the respective books. I find it hard to believe that Shamoun is mistaken in producing that quote. More likely that Lumbard has used an abridged version that omitted the comment about abrogation, and mistakenly claimed that Ibn Kathir said it was not abrogated.
Lumbard here:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=uTUnWkJ4kmMC&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=lumbard+islam+fundamentalism&source=bl&ots=DL_kExuT4H&sig=dGyNZNjpDHSA66EGhc0GB8n6v28&hl=en&sa=X&ei=20BVU7XoMoeU2QWE0oHYCw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=2%3A256&f=false
RodSerling says
p.s. Further confirmation that Lumbard made a false claim, from Raymond Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader, (2007) p. 41 (Google Books), the Al Qaeda leadership (perhaps bin Laden) wrote, regarding 2:256, [my brackets]:
“[…] Furthermore, a number of exegetes, including Ibn Kathir, have said that this verse has been abrogated by the Word of Allah Most High [then cites 48:16, 9:123, and 9:73]”
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Tdx3M-bHj34C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=2:256+48:16+al+qaeda+reader&source=bl&ots=nmN9KSbUIF&sig=vYcH_AuJCmKdAen3XmoUzf_ML8g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6kxVU-7fA6SQ3AWsmYGgBg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=2%3A256%2048%3A16%20al%20qaeda%20reader&f=false
Since this matches Shamoun’s quote, complete with the same verses, this supports Shamoun’s quote showing Ibn Kathir’s comment that 2:256 was abrogated, and indicates that Lumbard has (at best) got it wrong when he says that Ibn Kathir notes that the verse is not abrogated.
RodSerling says
correction:
The author of the chapter of Lumbard’s book in which that (almost certainly) false claim was made about Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of 2:256 was David Dakake (his chapter was “The Myth of a Militant Islam”). Lumbard was the editor, so he is still on the hook for the false claim, but at least he can’t be accused of having written it.
voegelinian says
“According to Sam Shamoun, who was debating another apologist a long time ago, a fuller version of Ibn Kathir’s tafsir–which as far as I’m aware isn’t available on the internet”
This is a good example of one out of dozens (if not hundreds) of important bibliographical and/or textual lacunae which the Anti-Islam Movement (if it existed) needs to tighten the screws on, preferrably with the development of a definitive digital Manual to become the “bible” in the “battle space of the war of ideas” (as Frank Gaffney aptly put it) which would help “deputize” the thousands of civilian Counter-Jihadists in working to wake up their fellow pleasantly somnambulant Westerners — perhaps for the time being the single most important context of the wider world war which Mohammedans are waging against us (a war of which the West remains largely incognizant).
Tradewinds says
” which the Anti-Islam Movement (if it existed)”
It needs to exist. Just as much as Anti-Fascism and Anti-Nazism.
voegelinian says
And Anti-Communism.
RodSerling says
Looking into more information on Lumbard…
A review of his tweets in the past several months reveals the usual pattern of connections and views of the professional Islam propagandist in the West:
-connected to and involved with Islamists, including but not limited to CAIR
-connected to the extreme anti-American left
-connected to other like-minded Islam propagandists
-pro-sharia, pro-“traditional” Islamic law
-anti-Western, anti-European
-anti-secularism
-anti-modernity
-anti-capitalism
-pro-sharia finance, wants to make the society more Islamic in prep for it
-anti-atheist
-anti-humanist
-anti-“idolatry”/ anti-polytheism
-pro-hell-fire doctrine
Perhaps I missed them, but as of 9 am today I saw no tweets written by him supporting women’s rights, no tweets opposing FGM, no tweets supporting the freedom to criticize religion and religious figures, no tweets supporting the right of Muslims to leave their faith openly without punishment (though he does tweet his hatred for “hypocrites” who for some unknown reason don’t express their disbelief openly), i.e., no tweets showing any awareness or acknowledgement of the sorts of problems that Hirsi Ali deals with. He does, however, have a lot to say about Sufism, “love” (i.e., of Islam, Allah, believers and belief), obedience, etc., in an Islamic context. He likes to produce partial and ambiguous pleasant-seeming quotes from the Qur’an, apparently to convey a misleading impression to the public about its actual contents.
Aside from the above, Lumbard mainly posts a lot of ridiculous pseudo-profound and nonsensical new-agey, mystical-sounding statements. Some of these tweets descend into (more than the usual) fatuous idiocy:
“Joseph Lumbard @JosephLumbard
If you feel that God is leading you off a cliff, then either He is going to catch you or He is going to teach you how to fly!!!
4:35 PM – 30 Mar 2014”
Oh, I don’t think there is any doubt that Lumbard has led himself off of a cliff, of sorts, or as Hugh Fitzgerald describes it, “adult-onset Islam” of the academic type.
When Lumbard’s not doing that, he is busy making false claims and rewriting history to promote Islam and demote the West (and non-Muslims more broadly). Example: He falsely claims that Muslim-majority Albania was the only country in Europe to proved a safe haven for Jews during the Holocaust:
A tweeter wrote:
Maya Zumwalt @One_islam_God Nov 12
Albania is the only European country whose population is over 90% Muslim.
To which Lumbard replied:
Joseph Lumbard @JosephLumbard Nov 12
@One_islam_God And the only European country to provide a safe haven for jews during the Holocaust!
https://twitter.com/JosephLumbard/status/400302313237012480#
In reality, there were other European countries that also provided some safety for Jews (though neither Albania nor any others were literal or complete “safe havens” for Jews), perhaps most notably Denmark. More here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/grobim.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_and_groups_assisting_Jews_during_the_Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Albania
It is disgraceful that an academic figure such as Lumbard should promote such a falsehood in order to promote the image of Islam while smearing Denmark and others.
RodSerling says
typo: to proved => to provide
RodSerling says
I propose, instead of debating these various Islam propagandists and anti-American leftists, we interview them. Propose an interview format where A asks B a series of questions, then B asks A a series of questions. The questions could be agreed upon in advance. Any questions that one refuses to answer would also be noted.
RodSerling says
Further calling into question Lumbard’s judgement (and sanity):
“Joseph Lumbard @JosephLumbard Mar 14
RT @Contentions: Who were more anti-Western: the Taliban, or the Buddhas of Bamiyan?
6:57 AM – 14 Mar 2014”