On August 19, David Wood and I debated Shia scholars Shaykh Sakhawat Hussain and Sayyid Atiq Ebady in Philadelphia on the question, “Does the Quran promote peace?”
I received this email from Sayyid Atiq the day after the debate:
Hello Mr. Spencer,
Thank you for accepting our invitation and attending the debate. I genuinely appreciate your participation, and I wish you would have stayed to explain why you didn’t shake my hand.
If you were upset because you wanted to respond to my closing remarks, you were our guest and the mic was available to you, even though both panels had equal time to make their points. If you were upset because I mentioned that Anders Breivik quoted you extensively, I explained that you publicly disavowed his actions, and I never said or implied that you agreed with him.
I made a point about the real-world consequences of the anti-Islam movement. You and your colleagues spread false information about Islam, that Islam is violent, and that Muslims are secretly planning a hostile takeover of the world. This causes the general public to have fear and paranoia about Muslims, and some people will inevitably act on it violently.
I was honestly disappointed because I didn’t expect a professional debater to become upset from a criticism of his work.
Sayyid Atiq
I sent this response to Sayyid Atiq:
Sayyid Atiq:
No need to redebate the debate in email now. We abundantly demonstrated that there is a tremendous amount of exhortation to violence in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Your claim that we fabricate this and that Muslims suffer as a result is a propaganda fiction with no basis in reality. What you are doing by stooping to such defamation is painting a large target on our backs. I was the one there with bodyguards; you didn’t have them, and the Sheikh didn’t have them. This is because you and I and the Sheikh all recognize the reality behind the rhetoric, and who is genuinely threatened and who isn’t.
There is so much more dishonesty in your email. I didn’t become upset from a criticism of my work. I became upset because you made a false claim about my responsibility for murders committed by a psychopath at a point when no rebuttal from me was possible. This was pure defamation, and belied the false kindness you displayed earlier. That is why (as I explained to you at that moment) I did not shake your hand. I was happy to shake the hand of the Sheikh, who did not indulge in such vicious rhetoric.
Moreover, you misrepresent for propaganda purposes the nature of Breivik’s quotes. He actually seems to quote me extensively because he included in his manifesto the text of a documentary film in which I appear. Every time I speak, my name is given in the text, to make it clear who is speaking. That is not really quoting me extensively. Aside from the documentary script, Breivik actually referred to me only a few times. You did not mention that one of those references upbraids me for not calling for violence. Of course, if you had told the crowd that, they would have realized that your whole claim that my work incites violence, was false. You also omitted mention of the fact that Breivik says in his manifesto that he was inspired to commit violence not by me, but by al-Qaeda and Hamas – that is, by two Muslim entities, one of which is funded by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nor did you mention that Breivik says that he decided to commit a massive act of violence in 1999. I published my first book about Islam in 2002.
Your last false statement is that the mic was available to me to offer a rebuttal. You make that claim now, but by the structure of the debate, there was no opportunity for me to speak after you. Nor did you offer one at the time.
I am very familiar with the Shi’ite doctrine of taqiyya, so I won’t bother to exhort you to be honest and stop lying so indefatigably and persistently. I know that the Sixth Imam said: “Conceal our doctrine and do not divulge it….Taqiyya is our religion and the religion of our fathers; he who has no taqiyya has no religion.” But I also recall that Jesus said of Satan: “When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” And Jesus also said: “Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”
I hope you will consider that carefully, and one day turn from lies to the truth, and from darkness and concealment to the light.
Also, I hope you will receive this email in the spirit in which it is intended. I am sorry that you chose to end the debate that way, but I would have been remiss if I had acted as if your false display of kindness was genuine and left on a superficially cordial note. And now, I know it is unpleasant to be called out on one’s dishonesty, but I do it nonetheless because I doubt anyone else in your life will, and I firmly believe that a word of truth that may seem harsh is preferable to a dishonest word spoken in dulcet tones. Nonetheless, I apologize if this email is brusque or unkind in any way. I hope that both you and I will be able to avail ourselves of the divine mercy of which we both are in such great need.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Linde Barrera says
Very genuinely gracious, Robert Spencer. God bless you and yours. And I pray for the enlightenment of salvation by Jesus Christ to all Muslims.
Vic says
+1
t says
+100!
gravenimage says
Hear, hear, Linde!
Kepha says
Amen
David Munson says
Well said Mr Spencer.
mortimer says
+1
Robert Spencer knows Islamic doctrines better than most of the mullahs.
LB says
Well said indeed. But no amount of logic will reach that venomous pit viper because he already knows all that Robert talks about to be true. He just wants to deceive as many people as possible by appealing friendly and understanding — a typical taqqiya tactic. But I believe that Mr. Spencer knows this too, he just wanted to give him a nice finishing rebuttal since he didn’t get the chance at the debate.
gravenimage says
These debates are to *expose* Islam for Infidels–not to convince pious Muslims.
Jameson says
The worst part about hearing Muslims lying in the West, and knowing how the average naïve twit in the West sucks it up, is that phony soft tone they use, how vile, it must be inspired by Satan, and that they know they are lying, so it sort of works together. It is outstanding that Mr. Spencer is able to stand up to the lies, the average person just gets run over when they try to speak the truth about Islam.
ermom says
Jameson, I totally agree. Look at our world, and try to tell me that Satan isn’t running rampant, for he knows his time is short.
Robert is a gentleman & a scholar, and one of the best teachers of Islam alive. Be safe, be well, Robert.
As you said, you & David needed the bodyguards, they didn’t.
mortimer says
Atiq said that there is NO ABROGATION of peaceful verses. Is Atiq a sheikh to make such a claim? No, he isn’t. So what is the EVIDENCE?
Ibn Juzayy notes that Sura 9:5 abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). According to As-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat [verse] of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam.”
Ibn Kathir echoes this, directing that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view commonly put forward by Muslim spokesmen in the West today — that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191.
If the unbelievers convert to Islam, the Muslims must stop killing them. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them.” Ibn Kathir: “These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.” Qutb says that the termination of the treaties with a four-month grace period, combined with the call to kill the unbelievers, “was not meant as a campaign of vengeance or extermination, but rather as a warning which provided a motive for them to accept Islam.”
Finally, it is noteworthy that, according to As-Suyuti, the jurist Ash-Shafi’i took this as a proof for killing anyone who abandons the prayer and fighting anyone who refuses to pay zakat [alms]. “Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun [unbelievers].” Likewise Ibn Kathir: “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.” Thus even Muslims who do not fulfill Islamic obligations fall into the category of those who must be fought. This is a principle that latter-day Salafist movements apply broadly and use frequently in branding governments that do not rule according to strict Islamic law as unbelievers who must be fought by those who regard themselves as true Muslims. This is playing out now in the Islamic State’s declaration that those Muslims who do not accept its authority are unbelievers and can therefore lawfully be killed.
– quote from Jihadwatch April 1, 2016
“”Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.” This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.” – This is the Ayah of the Sword, Tafsir al-Jalalayn
Atiq said that there is no abrogation of peaceful verses. Is Atiq a sheikh to make such a claim? No.
Ibn Juzayy notes that Sura 9:5 abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). According to As-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat [verse] of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam.”
Ibn Kathir echoes this, directing that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view commonly put forward by Muslim spokesmen in the West today — that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191.
If the unbelievers convert to Islam, the Muslims must stop killing them. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them.” Ibn Kathir: “These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.” Qutb says that the termination of the treaties with a four-month grace period, combined with the call to kill the unbelievers, “was not meant as a campaign of vengeance or extermination, but rather as a warning which provided a motive for them to accept Islam.”
Finally, it is noteworthy that, according to As-Suyuti, the jurist Ash-Shafi’i took this as a proof for killing anyone who abandons the prayer and fighting anyone who refuses to pay zakat [alms]. “Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun [unbelievers].” Likewise Ibn Kathir: “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.” Thus even Muslims who do not fulfill Islamic obligations fall into the category of those who must be fought. This is a principle that latter-day Salafist movements apply broadly and use frequently in branding governments that do not rule according to strict Islamic law as unbelievers who must be fought by those who regard themselves as true Muslims. This is playing out now in the Islamic State’s declaration that those Muslims who do not accept its authority are unbelievers and can therefore lawfully be killed.
– quote from Jihadwatch April 1, 2016
“”Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.” This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.” – This is the Ayah of the Sword, Tafsir al-Jalalayn
LeftisruiningCanada says
Thanks for your posts mortimer, they always expand on the subject at hand
gravenimage says
Thanks, Mortimer.
Demsci says
Yes, thanks Mortimer, very useful information.
From what I understand, from Bill Warner for instance; there is the “trilogy” of Quran-Sira-Hadiths. With strong and weak Hadiths.
What you quote here I believe are “Tafsirs”. rather authoritative interpreters of Islam, from the early period of the Khalifate, from about 900 AD, according to Jay Smith. He says that Al Tabari was the first of those.
I believe I read Al Jalalayn means “the twins”.
If I play advocate for the devil then I could say that Atiq does pay homage to the trilogy, being divine in origine, but not to the Tafsirs, being only of non-authoritative human origine.
In this way maybe Atiq and other Muslims can claim that peaceful verses are not abrogated. And political correct western journalists, politicians get to declare that “THE Islam does not exist”, claiming there are many legitimate interpretations provided these Tafsirs and later Islamic Scholars are NOT taken into account. This is very confusing and irritating. As they contradict maybe 99 % of the Muslims, who declare Islam to be CLEAR.
So the job of counterjihadists then becomes to
1. Force these Islam apologists, Muslim and Political Correct alike, to at least admit they reject the Tafsirs and Islamic Scholars on important points.
2. Point out exhaustively that “Islam then is NOT CLEAR” as multiple interpretations are possible, for instance interpretations following Tafsirs (clearly violent, supremacist, abrogating peaceful verses) and rejecting Tafsirs (and thus saying peaceful verses are NOT abrogated).
They can’t have it both ways; Either Islam is clear, but then there should be one clear consistent doctrine and “THE Islam DOES exist” or Islam is unclear, multi-interpretable. (And interpreted in a bad way by hundreds of millions of Muslims, including Tafsirs and famous scholars and leaders in Islam).
t. says
Thanks, mortimer, for this wealth of information!
Meanwhile, some parts in your comment above, were repeated..
Falsafa says
your views are your views mortimer. thankfully none of the muslims that matter including all of the Ulema that we all love and respect state completely opposite to what you seem to be preaching. They even spelled it out in a letter for the misguided such as yourselves. Here it is:
http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com
gravenimage says
The self-styled “Falsafa” is pretending that Muslim leaders reject savagery in the name of Islam–but this is false. They just consider Al-Baghdadi a rival.
Bob says
And, Jameson, our western politicians’re gobbling up the taqqiya so easily!
tim gallagher says
Good comment, Jameson. They just lie and lie to us, and, as you say, often in that slimy, soft, oh so reasonable tone of voice. I seem to remember hearing a joke along the lines of “How do you know when a politician is lying?” “When his lips are moving.” That’s what I believe about Muslim spokespeople. I prefer the Muslims who speak honestly about their violent intentions towards us. I don’t know how Robert remains so pleasant when talking with and debating these people. He’s a patient gentleman. I must say that I personally don’t want to waste time talking to Muslim liars. I just want them not to be in the country I live in, or any other non-Muslim country. Robert and David Wood do a great job though. Maybe they’ll even win a few Muslims over and convince them to pack up and leave the evil ideology they are involved in. And Bob, you’re right about our idiotic western politicians being fooled by the Muslim lies. Such fools.
Demsci says
Robert and David do a tremendous job. And I distinctly remember David explaining in one of his video’s that he views debates as something like the following:
To convince the opponent is not the goal. The debate is like that between a prosecutor and lawyer of the defense. The target to convince are the “judge and jury”, meaning the public.
In this context, both sides can win points with the public by their polite relaxed behavior. And both many Muslims and Robert and David do this to perfection, it seems to me.
peter hinks says
take that sucker.
Adrian says
This is the kind of exchange that should be broadcast on major TV networks, so the public can see for themselves what liars these Imams are…
Norger says
True of the written exchange and the debate itself. On the one hand, I always enjoy listening to the likes of Robert Spencer and David Wood debating with Muslims on the (non-issue) of whether Islam promotes violence. On the other hand, I can’t believe how utterly shameless this Imam is in lying through his teeth.
PRODOS says
I don’t know if Sayyid Atiq was actually lying when he made those false claims about Robert Spencer.
More likely he was perpetuating someone else’s lies, which he’d swallowed because they seemed so right (to him) given his already-held views.
In any case, Robert Spencer did the right thing in not shaking hands, and has replied in a manner which will test whether Sayyid Atiq is a genuine person or not.
I’m expecting that Sayyid Atiq is a genuine person and will follow up with a thoughtful response, rather than go beserk or double-down on the falsehoods. I believe he does want to be truthful and just.
I hope so.
It’s tragic and appalling that such a fine man and outstanding scholar like Robert Spencer has to put up with the rubbish and the falsehoods AND with physical DANGER on top of it.
For me, he is an inspiration at every level.
This episode has demonstrated it yet again.
Adrian says
O Prodos,
If Sayyid Atiq were a “genuine person” and interested in the truth, he would never have mentioned the Breivik red herring in the first place…
quite disingenuous of him… and methinks, you also protest too much when you “expect him to follow up with a thoughtful response”, Cataline…
Wellington says
Magnificent rebuttal by Robert Spencer. Really, I can think of no one (well, maybe one or two like Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill) who consistently demonstrated the ability to turn most every opposing argument on its head, as Mr. Spencer has done here and on numerous other occasions.
Spencer’s great contribution to freedom aside (and yes, this is a very big “aside”), his sheer rhetorical skills, whether in speaking or writing, are simply astounding. Robert Spencer could not only teach a class on Islam. He could also teach a class on rhetoric. Medieval scholars like Abelard who so prized the trivium of grammar, logic and rhetoric would have embraced Robert Spencer as a very worthy colleague. Of this I have no doubt.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear, Wellington!
St. Patrick says
Always hearing and both ears for each of you both..(please excuse my redundance)..Thanks guys for years of great comments and insight..Just sayin’..
gravenimage says
Good to see you posting, St. Patrick.
Demsci says
Yes, that is so. His rhetoric and logical skills at times are astounding me. Especially on his turf of debate about Islam, in a honest equal debate, that man is unbeatable. And I find David Wood as being on the same level.
In everyday life though, when we ourselves get in debate, or discussion, our opponents only rarely give us an honest equal debate, letting us (while we also let them) explain the finer logical points, facts, reasons and nuances of our arguments.
I read of Pierre Abelard, very nice touch to refer to this admirable mediëval “professor, teacher”, Wellington. Being well informed on one’s “terrain” and expressing oneself so logical and clear certainly is to be admired, even enjoyed.
Norger says
“Especially on his turf of debate about Islam, in an honest equal debate, that man is unbeatable.”
And that is precisely why the likes of CAIR and the SPLC work so hard to demonize Robert Spencer. They have no interest in “honest equal debate,” because they know what will happen. Far easier to simply dismiss Robert Spencer with ad hominem smears than to actually engage in substantive discussion with him.
davej says
Oh the falsehoods, misrepresentations, distortions and false cordiality – how Islamic of him! One can easily discern the darkness from the light.
Great reply to his whiny email BTW.
overman says
l hope Robert doesn’t mind if l put this video up with better audio and subtitles, because the other one was very hard to hear – except with robert and david at the end. This one doesn’t have robert and david making their rebuttal, though, but at least we can hear most of what they’re saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whRtynl5hrA
mortimer says
overman, Good sound. Appreciated.
gravenimage says
Thanks.
Karly says
When I hear them say that to understand the Holy Qur’an, one must know Arabic, you know they have been defeated as of the beginning. They are in defensive mode.
How many contracts are drafted in Arabic and translated into other languages and the translations are all valid? What’s wrong with the ‘Holy’ Qur’an?
mortimer says
Karly asked: “What’s wrong with the ‘Holy’ Qur’an?” (i.e. why can the Koran not be translated?)
Answer by Gerd Puin (Koranic expert): “My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.”
overman says
lnteresting.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Bet that guy watches his back and always sits facing a door
Demsci says
Invaluable insight Mortimer. What Gerd Puin explained is refuting the claim of Islam and Muslims that Islam is clear. To make it clearer Muslims need the Hadiths to explain and expand on the Quran a lot. But after that they also depended on Tafsirs and later Islamic Scholars until today for clarification of these obsolete, incomplete, contradicting, uncomprehensible holy texts.
It seems to me this is a weakness in Islam that is far too less studied and exploited by counterjihadists. Perhaps because it entails admitting that, since Islam is unclear, that yes, both peaceful and supremacist interpretations are possible from the hotchpotch of Quran only, and also of Islam limited to only Quran and Hadiths combined. Those can be seen as “Divine”.
But one could acknowledge the choice of Muslims of adhering to or rejecting the interpretations and clarifications of subsequent Tafsirs and Islamic Scholars and schools of thought. Which can be considered “only human”. But without them Islam is unclear, with them it is clear, it seems to me.
But Muslims and Western Islam-apologists never admit THAT. Many of them do not even understand that themselves.
Jack Diamond says
“to understand the Holy Qur’an, one must know Arabic”… then 80% of the Muslim world doesn’t know the Qur’an. This is just irrational protectionism for the “holy” words of Allah, which infidels are not supposed to read at all (most Arabs don’t read classic Arabic either).
As for what in the Qur’an is comprehensible, the meaning in the Arabic is usually much worse than what gets translated. The term for the disbelievers, kaffir, has horrible, filthy connotations in the Arabic that do not get so translated in the English Qur’an. The term used for fighting in the cause of allah, qital, has the meaning in Arabic of kill, massacre, and slaughter. In English it is just translated as “fight.” There’s a big, ugly difference, so to that extent, yes, you should understand the Qur’an in the Arabic.
gravenimage says
Yes, this is ludicrous. Any language can be translated–and, as noted, most Muslims do not read Classical Arabic, either. Yet most of them know all too well the vicious dikats of the Qur’an.
This is just a way to deflect criticism from the Infidels.
Norger says
Yes, I am so sick of hearing this nonsense. Interesting that this taquiya tagteam let the Sheikh, who is clearly challenged in speaking English, make this argument; a clever bit of deception in itself.
Mr. Sheikh, this argument essentially posits that Arabic language somehow cannot be translated and the “true meaning” of the Koran thus cannot be understood by anyone other than Arabic speakers, or perhaps more accurately those who still speak the Arabic dialect of the of over 1000 years ago. Hmmmm. How can this possibly work for a religion of 1.6 billion or so, only a small fraction of whom actually speak Arabic? Aren’t there plenty of translations of the Koran into various languages that have been certified by recognized Islamic authorities as accurate and complete? The clear and perfect word of God can only be understood in one language? Of all the world’s major religions, Islam is the only one that claims (invariably in response to criticism of the Koran’s hateful texts) that non-believers somehow do not or cannot understand the holy texts because we don’t speak the language in which the texts were originally written. Where the Koran says to “smite the necks” of the unbelievers, it really means give them a hug. Mr. Sheikh, you are throwing sand in the eye of your audience with this total BS doubletalk.
Surely Mr. Sheikh you would agree that if anyone understands Arabic it’s the Saudis and THEIR interpretation/understanding of the Koran is…. not exactly peaceful, right?
PRCS says
Spot on.
The Saudis are Arabs, they speak Arabic, and are Salafists/Wahabbists, whose interpretation/understanding of Qur’an is strict literalism.
mgoldberg says
The reality is that it’s not at all the problem of language. The hebrew Torah, the ‘old testament’ is virtually without change ( perhaps 7 syllables) over the course of 3000 yrs!
And yes… there are words, phrases, and concepts based upon the subtlety of the language and meaning, as demonstrated by sages over the millenia. Now… that doesn’t mean it cant be understood by others, it does require understanding of the interpretation
and why, and then judge history of the theology, and religion and how it is taught. But he keys are how it is practices and taught. In Islam, all the majore historical commentators call for war, and history of Islam taught and teaches it, in regards to Jihad, and taquiya itself is taught, specifically by the shia as lying to non muslims as necessary and mandatory. There is no such thing in the Jewish theology nor teaching, nor history.
Now… here we are with this lying baloney, again, thrown out as by Islam ‘haters’, by these two preachers of Islam. The hatred expressed by Islam, by muslims, across the globe is of the totality of peoples practicing Islam, and expecially by newcomers, who take on the mantle of those hatreds with such animated fervor.
Throughout the talk, the imam especially reinforced the notion that the ‘defensive’ nature of war in Islam meant that the muslims weren’t to just sit around and take it, as it were when attacked. Yet, now, in Europe and across the globe of muslim minorities, attacking, murdering in other lands, especially Europe, the citizens are told to take it, lest they be seen as racists. And nowhere do you find imams actually asking for forgiveness for the abominations, the horrors of muslim attacks, rapes, mass murders of
people.
Carolyne says
Until quite recently, Roman Catholic services were said in Latin, which most Catholics do not read or speak. I might be mistaken, but I believe it was John Paul II who changed it to be in the language of the country in which the service is held. A few years ago I attended Christmas services at Canterbury Cathedral, held by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and much of it, including most of the hymns, was in Latin.
So while most Catholics and other denominations can read and understand their religion, it was not long ago that they did not. I do not mean this as a criticism, but merely to point out that Islam is not the only religion which has kept its masses from reading their own doctrines.
gravenimage says
It is not so much that Islam does not want Muslims to know what Islam is–it is that they do not want *Infidels* to know what a threat it is.
Karly says
Also, notice the younger guy in black with prominent zabiba – the first Islamic speaker – he’s reading straight from notes, his eyes riveted on the text. Why is it that they need a script before them? Can’t they speak from knowledge? Spencer is not reading from a text and neither is David Wood.
We are becoming better at this than they are. All we need are a few words on a piece of paper for follow-through.
mortimer says
Karly, the Islamic texts they must quote from are VOLUMINOUS… well over 500,000 words in the Islamic source texts. No one can memorize 500,000 words.
gravenimage says
Yet–as noted–Robert Spencer and David Wood do not need notes.
mortimer says
Question: “Does the Qur’an promote peace?”
Evidence: The Koran’s 164 Jihad Verses: K 002:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244; 003:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167,169, 172-173, 195; 004:071-072, 074-077, 084, 089-091, 094-095,100-104; 005:033, 035, 082; 008:001, 005, 007, 009-010, 012, 015-017, 039-048,057-060, 065-075; 009:005, 012-014, 016, 019-020, 024-026, 029,036, 038-039, 041, 044, 052, 073, 081, 083,086, 088, 092, 111, 120, 122-123; 016:110; 022:039, 058, 078; 024:053, 055; 025:052; 029:006, 069; 033:015, 018, 020, 023, 025-027, 050; 042:039; 047:004, 020, 035; 048:015-024; 049:015; 059:002, 005-008, 014; 060:009; 061:004, 011, 013; 063:004; 064:014; 066:009; 073:020; 076:008.
Answer: “No.”
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Robert Spencer wrote: “What you are doing by stooping to such defamation is painting a large target on our backs. I was the one there with bodyguards; you didn’t have them, and the Sheikh didn’t have them.”
EXACTLY. The fact that Robert Spencer and David Wood NEEDED BODYGUARDS was evidence that TRULY the Koran PROMOTES VIOLENCE against disbelievers and the sheikh and Atiq are both ACCUSED by the presence of bodyguards at such a debate! Atiq and the sheikh are professional deceivers.
– “Anyone who kills an infidel is guaranteed Paradise.” – Abu Dawud Number 2489
– “…you should know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.” – Abu Dawud Number 2625
– It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite. ‘Abdullah b. Mubarak said: We think the hadith pertained to the time of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). – Sahih Muslim 20:4696
Westman says
I noticed that Atiq was an absolute coward when it came to refuting the Ayatollah by name about his statements on war and jihad. All he could muster was something about Muslim country leaders not representing Islam. Apparently the deadly arm of Iran reaches into the US and Atiq doedn’t want a target on his back; though he has no problem placing one on Robert Spencer.
mortimer says
ISLAM TEACHES BIGOTED WARFARE AGAINST DISBELIEVERS … it is bigotry! Period.
mgoldberg says
Listing to the guy sayid atic, I was reminded of something Oriana Fallaci said about Yasser Arafat ‘He can’t turn on a light switch without telling a lie’
For him to try to wipe all that violent, all that utter tyranny away as if it was never existent is to simply lie as in taquiya. He shadows Isis as evil, but nothing of his shia or Islam. Nothing. It’s all in defense of Islam that any violence occurs. Despite all evidence of history, of our times of our eyes ears and all the nations under duress by Islam.
I’m reminded of so so many instances, but I think of that observant jewish rabbi and his wife in Mumbai India. Yes the attack by Paki musims, sunni, was never followed by any mea culpa or screams asking for forgiveness. In that attack, against all the innocents in mumbai, some hundreds murdered and wounded, there were those two, the rabbi and his wife also specifically targeted in their modest synogogue home. She was disemboweded of her eight month old fetus, and her breast cut off, and he the rabbi, had his genitals cut off. They were slaughtered, and mutilated, and nowhere do I recall muslims, shia, or sunni, coming to beg for forgiveness for the horror of that attack upon all those people but especially those two innocents at their home targeted for simply being jews.
That is Islam. The liars always lie.
gravenimage says
Islam is utterly savage, and only pretends otherwise in order to lull the Infidels into a false sense of security so they can more easily take over.
Emilie Green says
Robert, you have such class in all that you do.
Bravo and thanks.
VRWC member77 says
I was there. It was no contest. Robert and David destroyed these guys without any needed concerted effort of thought. Sayyid spent most of his time popping up notes -most of which were opinionated typed up statements- on the background screen. He never made any cogent arguments or solid reasonable counterpoint……and as the video shows, he flat out LIED on a number of points.
The muslims there were for the most part, pleasant people. However, about 30 minutes before the debate there was a muslim belting out loud obnoxious Arabic chants during his “mic check” for about 10-15 minutes. I don’t care who sponsored it but the debate was held in a Christian Church!
gravenimage says
Thank you, VRWC member77.
Norger says
Glad a JW reader was there. Although I agree that Robert and David won the debate, the crowd sounded like it mostly favored the two Shia speakers. Did you sense that Robert and David won any hearts and minds?
Raja says
Norger, An Islamist is hardly won over as they are too supremacist. The audience, in all probability came in for the subjugation of the infidel debaters.
I personally would not exhort anyone to debate Islamist as they usually HIT BELOW THE BELT and PROPAGATE THE same as evidence within their communities.
This debate too was unfair as RS and DW were not given the opportunity to respond or defend.
I thought our men did a great job and were graceful also.God bless them in their fight against Satan’s lies.
VRWC member77 says
gravin, thank you for your commentary here on JW.
Norger, yeah there were probably more muslims there than we kuffars. Regarding the winning over new hearts and minds, it’s hard to say. Raja is probably correct as the two defending muslim supremacists could have blathered on about any and all Islamic absurdities and the mulsims would have vigorously seal-clapped away. When I mentioned to my wife that there were a lot of young hijab wearing musilinas in the crowd she brought up good point. At the present time, the responses of Robert and Davis may not have an immediate effect on these young woman but it does plant a seed of future doubt. We can only hope………and spread the seed of doubt ourselves.
gravenimage says
Thanks, VRWC member77.
And I agree–a seed of doubt may have been planted that causes them to take a second look. I know this happens.
Most of all, I hope the Infidels in the audience learned something.
Carolyne says
I think that Mr. Spencer can destroy the rhetoric of any Muslim by his sheer superior knowledge of Islam and its tenets What a disgrace that in this country he must employ bodyguards to keep him from harm by these barbarians.
The fact is that all of them want all of us dead. Period.
VRWC member77 says
“What a disgrace that in this country he must employ bodyguards to keep him from harm by these barbarians. ”
100% right on!
The reality of his limited freedom of movement struck hard and showed that individuals like him pay a heavy price for our benefit.
gravenimage says
Yes–because in the end, Muslims are not concerned about not being able to debate Infidels. In the end, they want to impose Islam by force.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Sayyid Atiq tells Robert Spencer, “I wish you would have stayed to explain why you didn’t shake my hand.”
Atiq speaks as if he *wanted* to shake hands with Spencer, a notorious infidel. Had Atiq shaken hands with this kafir (Yuck!), he would have had to go through a session of wudu voodoo to wash the najisity off his right hand before he could ever pray again.
PRCS says
Wudu voodoo.
davej says
Which side needs bodyguards clearly demonstrates the truth about Islamic violence and intimidation.
David Wood says
Anyone else notice that the Muslim debaters got twelve and a half minutes for their ten-minute conclusion?
Krazy Kafir says
LOL , I would be shocked if they didn’t. The last question to Robert was pre-planned, no doubt about it. When I think of Islam, I think of snakes.
dsinc says
I like snakes, the reptilian kind.
John S. Obeda says
I remind you that it was a snake that the devil used by which mouth sin and death and eventually Islam itself came into being and through Islam the devil still kills..
John S. Obeda says
The “you” in “I remind you” refers chiefly to Krazy Kafir, i.e. chiefly. But, of course, the existence of the devil explains well the origin of sin, lies, death, hell, and Islam.
Jack Diamond says
Because they are twelvers, of course! Or, this Presby. church is biased in whom it favors?
They can never, ever explain away 9:29. Ah, the “nuances” of the Arabic language defense….
Then they lie lie lie about the Verse of the Sword and the meaning of the verses preceding it.
They lie about jihad. They lie because the only job of a Muslim in dar al-Harb is to exonerate Islam and promote Islam. And inter-faith “dialogue.”
“There are absolutely no verses of violence and aggression in the Qur’an.” Orwell died too soon.
Jack Diamond says
Did I hear him call Robert “Robert Johnson”? But who sold whose soul at the crossroads?
Lying to save your life… Muhammad permitting lying to get near and assassinate a critic of his. Lying to save your life? Muhammad permitted lying, even bad mouthing him, in order to gain wealth for the Muslims. “Say what you have to say” advised Muhammad. Muhammad said “war is deception” and he practiced it in the conquest of Yahtrib/Medina. He pretended to be a friend to the Jews while secretly making the Pledge of Aqaba to destroy them (“blood blood, destruction destruction”). Lying to save your life?
Mischief. Waging war against Islam. Used interchangeably.
The Islamic scholar Aga Mahdi Puya: “Waging war against Allah and his Prophet means hostility against his chosen representative, or deviation from his laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him, or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims.” Vague enough?
Anyone hostile to Islam is making mischief. Ibn Kathir “the punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive to MAKE MISCHIEF IN THE LAND (fasadan) is only this, they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned. {fasadan meaning corruption, creating disorder by opposing Allah}.”
No verses of violence or aggression in the Qur’an.
Qur’an 8:39 “Fight (kill) them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief, persecution) and religion will be for Allah alone (in the whole world).” What is persecution of Muslims?
Ibn Kathir “8:39 is the oder to eradicate Shirk and Kufr. Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (trial in religion) and the religion will be for Allah alone (so there is no more kufr, disbelief). Rebellion against God’s will is termed as fitna. Fitna refers us to misconduct on the part a man who establishes his own norms and expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God’s authority, who alone is sovereign.”
and fitna is worse than killing, worse than making a slaughter.
Oh, but there are no verses of violence or aggression in the Qur’an. (He calls them verses of justice, almost under his breath).
The Verse of the Sword is really about self-defense and limited to ethical limits of warfare.
The verses before 9:5 are about peace treaties that are dissolved after four months notice, with exceptions until the agreed termination. That is all. After that, it frees all obligations to ALL treaties. According to Ibn Juzaayy “it abrogates EVERY peace treaty in the Qur’an.”
Ibn Kathir says “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them is not limited to pagans in Arabia but “on earth in general.”
9:6 only allows protection for some idolators for the purpose of converting them to Islam or to spread the message of Islam. That’s all.
Ibn Kathir ” this honorable ayat (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword…it aborogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty and every term. This ayat allowed fighting people {FIGHTING PEOPLE!) unless and until they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.”
“Fighting the non-Muslims was prohibited in the four holy months…at the end ‘kill them wherever you find them’ means in any part of the earth; ‘take them’ means take them prisoner of war if you want or kill them if you want; ‘besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush’ means do all this to make it harder for them and put them in a position to repent and become a Muslim or to be in reach of your hand so that you can cut them and kill them.”
Jalaluddin Suyuti “Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam, submitting and paying the jizya tax, or being killed. The verses about forgiving them are abrogated..by the obligation of fighting.”
“When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance (Nine) was revealed God commanded his Prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim…whether they fought him or not.” –Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
Self defense.
eduardo odraude says
Notice the way jihadists and their supporters countenance the most horrifying kinds of brutality and atrocity against non-Muslims and ‘fake’ Muslims, as if absolutely no moral limits had to be observed. The limits that the Qur’an says not to transgress are not very stringent, not if Muhammad’s behavior is the paradigm to follow.
If Islamic doctrine promotes a bizarrely unrestrained violence against unbelievers, we should not be surprised that it also induces among too many a bizarrely promiscuous employment of lying. In part, this is the legacy of living under dictatorships, especially Islamic ones, where pervasive lying is often necessary even for everyday survival. For too many, lying thus becomes habitual, automatic, like breathing. This leads to the situation pointed out for example about Yasir Arafat, that he could not even switch on a light without lying. Islam leads to dictatorship and an empire of lies. The West has its own imperfections, but they are nothing compared to the slavery, ignorance, and darkness of the Muslim Middle East.
Demsci says
Jack, your post is very informative and valuable. And it seems to me a combination of genuine texts from the Quran and Hadiths and a few “Tafsirs” and “Islamic Scholars” (Agha Madi Puya, Ibn Kathir, Jalaluddin Sayuti, Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya).
After 1400 years it seems to us as if Quran-Hadiths-Sira-Tafsirs-Islamic Scholars are all one packet; Clear Islam, violent, supremacist.
But these apologists, and the political correct Islam-defenders contradict the Tafsirs and Islamic Scholars a lot. And still get away with it towards the general public almost completely.
How the Muslim apologists contradict Tafsirs and Scholars?
By saying that parts of Quran and Hadith that are violent, supremacist are only to be seen as DEScriptive, not PREScriptive. And by denying that peaceful verses are abrogated.
By freely mixing mecca and medina verses.
By referencing peaceful weak Hadiths and omitting violent supremacist strong Hadiths.
And the political correct apologists always go: Oh, there is not ONE definite Islam, there are many variations of it. Completely ignoring if not ignorant of what all these Tafsirs and Scholars teach.
Jack Diamond says
Demsci, these particular apologists know perfectly well what the clear consensus of Islamic scholars all say. They are simply lying and dissembling.
If a Muslim says (absurdly) there are no verses of violence and aggression in the Qur’an, and adds that those verses are about “justice”… he probably means: war against Allah, making mischief, creating fitna-discord; and yes, disbelief itself, this is all aggression against the Muslims. violence against Islam. If the Muslims fight back, it can only be about justice and self-defense. And correction, punishment by Allah is through the hands of the Muslims. Allah is clear that dar al-Harb (the infidel house of war and rebellion) has no right to exist.
What he will actually say (to the kuffar), however, is the litany you’ve noted.
These Muslim apologists do count on a great deal of ignorance about Islam on the part of the audience. All one can say is “let facts be submitted to a candid world.”
gravenimage says
Mr. Wood, you were brilliant! You and Robert make a fine pair of debaters. Kudos to you both.
Keys says
+1 indeed !
Darryl Kerney says
Sayyid concludes that you have to have to read it in arabic to really get it,
what a genius !
he really should explain that to Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi,
oh wait he got his PhD at an arabic university and studied in arabic,
hmm,
what were those other excuses again…?
Keys says
Too bad al-Baghdadi can’t debate these two muslims. He’d need body guards too, but they’d be no help against a drone attack.
Darryl Kerney says
baghdadi would shred their arguments, and then have them shredded….
michigan man says
many thanks to robert and david for doing all they do to enlighten all of us to the truth.to sayyid atiq i say ,you follow a fake prophet and a fake religion.islam offers NOTHING to this world of ours.i see and hear what your fake religion and fake prophet say and i DESPISE all of it.
Westman says
Well handled.
Why was Shaykh Sakhawat Hussain little more than a potted plant with a few sit-down lines to speak?
Actually this “debate” was very eye opening to the embarassment Iran causes US Shias, the cowardness of Sayyid Atiq to reference the Ayatollah by name while lightly refuting his statements on war, the hypocrisy of persecuting the Bahai while claiming victim status under Sunnis, and Atiq’s palpable indignation that Islam peacefulness is questioned just because a half-billion Muslims approve of violent jihad against unbelievers.
Apparently US Shias are attempting to walk a fine line(being only about 12% of Muslims and not all are “twelvers”) to avoid persecution by Sunnis and make a better integration into US society than the Sunnis. Frankly, these two Muslim scholars in the debate don’t represent majority Islam but did a good job of appologetics for them anyway. Of course, if Atiq were to go to Iran, he might not return, there being some disagreement about peaceniks and such.
It is good to see Shias wanting more acceptance and vocally eschewing violence. I doubt their new Bida assemblage of the Quran and Hadith(we don’t accept hadith unless we agree) will fly very far with the Sunnis. However, I welcome all the peaceful modifications they wish to make to Islam – as long as they live it.
gravenimage says
This was Taqiyya–not a genuine desire to make Islam less violent.
Westman says
Oh, I know that, graven. The more often they claim distorted ideology the closer they come to publicly owning it and the more trouble they will have with Sunnis and diehard Iranians. The more exposure like this, the less flexibilty they will have.
Demsci says
Well said, Westman.
Actually in discussions about Islam it is almost invariably the Muslims and the Political Corrects who do the “running” as soon as the person on our side starts to show genuine knowledge of Islam in theory and factual practice. It is among other reasons because they fear either losing the debate in front of 3rd persons or losing ever more flexibility.
AH, well, in a sense Robert and David had it easier than the Muslims, the facts and logic were mostly on their side. Which Islamic geniuses would ever be able to beat those 2 in logical debate, getting the majority of votes of an intelligent, well informed, honest, patiënt public, given the abominable religion and positions Muslims have to defend?
gravenimage says
True, Westman and Demsci.
Demsci says
Bida is something like “forbidden innovation” isn’t it?v
Demsci says
Bida is something like “forbidden innovation” isn’t it
Matthieu Baudin says
“… I firmly believe that a word of truth that may seem harsh is preferable to a dishonest word spoken in dulcet tones…”
So true. And Britain today is letting its great democratic tradition slip away precisely because it has opted for the ‘dulcet tones’ above all else.
Bob says
Great debate. Was nice to hear the Islamic side (however lame) try to defend Islam without launching into repetavive ad hominem attacks on David and Robert. The problem I had with this debate is that Ebady used a shotgun approach to his answers and there wasn’t time for Robert & David to respond to all of his nonsense point by point.
Claiming over and over again that there are no violent passages in the Qur’an doesn’t make it so. And the “out of context”and “you have to understand Arabic to understand the Qur’an” is just silly. I guess when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassadors to Great Britain Siri Haji Abdul Rahman Asia to ask by what right his nation attacks American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. His reply was; ” Islam was founded on the laws of the profit, and it was within the Qur’an that all nations who should not acknowledge their authority were sinners, and it was the right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, And to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and every Muslim who should be slain in battle is sure to go to paradise”. I guess the Algerian Ambassador just didn’t understand Arabic or perhaps just misinterpreted the Qur’an and took things out of context.
I’d like to see Ebady and Robert then David go at one on one with just a back and forth, no time limit, just make a statement then make a counter statement and let the discussion go where it goes.
PRCS says
“Claiming over and over again that there are no violent passages in the Qur’an doesn’t make it so.
There’s a word for doing that.
Eric says
In the first 10 seconds;”The moderator has asked that her face not be shown.” End of debate.
James says
Cheers,One Muslim stands against Isis ect .but the moderator does not want her face shown.They are afraid to speak up about others in their own religion and rightfully so.
duh swami says
‘Allah, you not so magnificent bastard, I read your book’…According to you peace will come when all residence to Islam is stopped and only Allah is to be worshipped….my only regret is that I only have 2 middle fingers to salute you with…
gravenimage says
Awesome, Swami!
Donafugata says
Many thanks Robert and David for your scholarship and time studying izlam so that I don’t have to.
Lenore Cooper says
Mr. Spencer, I have such a huge respect for you and your colleague. This debate was actually good as no one got into a fist fight or spoke over each other. Its a nice change.
Mark says
This documentary needs to be shared as fast and widely as possible. Please give it a thumbs up and subscribe to his email before it is removed from Face book and YouTube. https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Ron Malidy says
Why is the moderators face covered? Shame?
Janeatte says
Muslims are very good in twisting the truth,they are embarrassed from their religion,they try to make face left for every verses in the Quran,Mohammad they taught them to lie to protect Islam, Muslims are the first victims for their ideology,they trying to prove Islam is a peace religion in the same time they applying and practicing the violence of the Quran,
martin says
The muslim trying the old, tell as many lies as it can hoping they wont have time to deal with them
martin says
The muslim proves himself one of satans, lying over and over again.
Art Telles says
Jesus…
Well said Robert.
It is nice to see that Jesus was brought into the conversation the way that you did.
Bring YHWH, God the father and his only son, YAH’s only conceived in the womb (the actual words of the angel Gabriel to Mary) son and the conversation immediately changes into a forward march and a forward charge instead of a conversation of defense.
Jesus vs. Muhammad
YHWH vs. Allah
YHWH is the only creator God (El, Elohim, Elohinu, etc., are translated “God” – – “El” means “mighty one”) of heaven and earth, every speck of the dirt of earth.
Allah, biblicaly speaking, is a “god” who may be a “mighty one” to Muslims but he is NOT a creator “mighty one” because Allah can’t have a child as YHWH did, and Allah can’t create anything, not even one tiny speck of dirt
Jesus lives!
Muhammad is still buried in his grave.
The conversation continues…
It continues until the return of Jesus and the resurrection from the dead of believers of Jesus as the only “conceived in the womb” son of YHWH and the resurrection from the dead of unbelievers who do not believe that the ONLY God who is the ONLY Creator of “dirt” can have a son.
Art
martin says
Muhamad said he was made victorious with terror…
martin says
They used the you have to know arabic ploy….
BUT for those that know arabic…oh dear then it changes to, you have to know classical arabic.
martin says
All these muslims are good for is showing/proving they have to allways lie.
martin says
so the musllim in summing up went for politcal goals and a change of subject, yet debate was to stick to subject.
martin says
The muslims only lied in the summing up, with obviously no time for our 2 to expose their lies.
Raja says
Robert Spencer and David Wood have won the debate hands down (not just because what they said)
Later they mentioned they were the ones with bodyguard and not the Mohd followers.
Hasn’t the idiom ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS been proven right?
eduardo odraude says
Just read Robert Spencer’s letter to Sayyid Atiq. Spencer is both forceful in criticism yet conciliatory and inspiring in the end. Really beautifully done. I wish we could see Spencer more often leaven the insights of his gimlet eye with such statements of humility and hope for conciliation.
James says
This debate was highly educational for me.Thank you Mr. Spencer
Peacemaker says
Muslim logics:
1) if you say Islam is not a religion of peace, then Muslim will go for violence.
2) if you say Islam is a religion of peace, then Muslim still go for violence.
As a matter of fact, both statements are true, It doesn’t matter how you say, Islam and Muslim are both violence (A Muslim cannot separate from Islam).
Len says
All these people have to offer are evasive claims about that no-one besides them can truly understand islam and so we have to take them at their word that it is a religion of peace. They can’t even quote a scholar saying islam is peacefull or give an example of how a verse is different in arabic than in an english translation. They just look weak with their personal attacks in lieu of arguments.
Thank you robert and david. Am admiring your strength and will to cary this burden for the good of everyone.
Karen says
Good comments Len. I noticed that Atiq had it both ways in the old ‘you don’t know Arabic’ concept. Apparently reading the Koran in English is sufficient to be an ok convert to Islam (he certainly wouldn’t want to discourage conversions), but it’s not sufficient to be a knowledgeable critic. Pretty lame, as you point out. Christianity and Judaism don’t have language superiority complexes.
John S. Obeda says
Mr. Spenser. May God keep your mind and that of Mr. Wood and the mind of many other warriors sharp. I thank you both for the debate, My comment further is this: your final thought in your letter to Mr. Ebady was: “I hope that both you and I will be able to avail ourselves of the divine mercy of which we both are in such great need.” You could have added: “and the only way that anyone receives God’s mercy and forgiveness and eternal life is through faith in Jesus Christ Who by His suffering and death and resurrection from the dead made God’s mercy toward us possible. It is only through faith in Jesus, His Son, that anyone can avail himself of God’s mercy.
Karen says
It’s always a great pleasure (and educational) to see these two handsome geniuses working together! What a team. I hope to see many more such debates, if there are others brave enough to take on the massive combined intellect of Spencer and Wood.
Regarding the post script dealing with Atiq’s dishonest reference to the Breivik manifesto; I enjoy informing people that Bill and Hillary Clinton are directly quoted 3 times in this document. If I wanted to be a schmuck like Atiq, (which I’m not), I’d include a 4th indirect reference.
Karen says
Regarding the Clintons; of course this is only done as a response to people who parrot this garbage about the manifesto. The Clintons are quite capable of ruining their own reputations, no help needed there.