In this latest eruption of hysteria from Stanford, Siena Fay, a columnist for the Stanford Daily, attempts to explain why I should not be allowed to speak at the university, and fails, rather spectacularly. Much more below.
“An ‘expert’ without expertise,” by Siena Fay, Stanford Daily, November 9, 2017:
On Nov. 14, Robert Spencer will speak at Stanford.
He believes Islam is “the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the hegemony of the Islamic social order all over the world,” as he stated in an interview on C-SPAN in 2006.
Funny; I don’t recall Malala Yousafzai advocating for violence and world domination. Must have missed that headline.
Do they teach logic at Stanford? Do they even teach rational thought? Or is it all just wall-to-wall Diversity Studies and Gender Theory and all that? This is so embarrassing for Siena Fay that I am embarrassed myself in commenting on it. Islam doesn’t have a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers because Malala doesn’t advocate violence? And why does Siena Fay think that Malala is the touchstone of Islamic orthodoxy? Is Malala the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar? Is Malala the Pope of Islam?
In reality, Malala may or may not be following all the doctrines of Islam, but the question of whether Islam has a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers can only be answered by looking at Islamic doctrine, theology, and law, not at Malala.
So let’s do that. One might get the impression that Islam has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad: “The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.” (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers. It would be illuminating if Siena Fay or someone around her produced some quotations from Muslim authorities she considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslims who believe that Islam has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers.
One might also get the impression that Islam has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers from these Qur’an verses:
2:191-193: “And kill them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is worse than slaughter. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, kill them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and kill them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”
8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror thereby into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
There are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”
The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.
The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.
Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
Here again, obviously there is a widespread understanding of the Qur’an within Islamic tradition that sees it, and Islam, as mandating violence against unbelievers.
Spencer is a blogger, author and director of the website Jihad Watch. He travels the country offering his “expertise” on Islam and jihad to universities, news channels and politicians. Except he is not an expert. He does not hold a Ph.D., master’s or bachelor’s degree in Islamic studies. He has not published any peer-reviewed academic papers, the most basic criterion to be a serious academic scholar.
Siena, what you have made here is called an argument from authority. Logically, it is the weakest of all arguments. Why? Because a degree does not automatically confer expertise, and the lack of one does not immediately equate to a lack of knowledge. There are plenty of fools with doctorates and wise people without them. There are plenty of peer-reviewed academic papers that are full of appalling nonsense and gobbledegook. In the real world, arguments aren’t judged by the number of degrees possessed by those who are making them, but by their intellectual and evidentiary merits. My arguments stand or fall on exactly that: the evidence. Do you have the courage to evaluate that evidence for yourself?
His opinion has been cited by numerous news outlets, but most of his work appears on his blog. That’s right: His blog.
Here again: the truth or falsehood of a statement cannot be determined by the location where the statement was made. The truth or falsehood of a statement can only be determined by examining the salient evidence, wherever it appears.
It’s true he has been featured on The New York Times bestseller list, but so has Snooki from MTV’s Jersey Shore. Popularity does not in itself make credibility.
At last, Siena, you have made a true statement.
Spencer is largely “self-taught” on the Qu’ran and Islamic history. He majored in religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with his master’s thesis on Catholic history.
Oh, once again, how embarrassing for you, Siena: when you’re busy detailing my abject ignorance of Islam, it’s important to get your facts straight. It’s “Qur’an,” not “Qu’ran.” And my master’s thesis was not in “Catholic history.” Siena, you’re reading hit sites instead of researching for yourself.
He attributes “a great deal” of what he knows to his mentor, Paul Weyrich, who advocated for the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee, claimed gays and feminists were sinners and believed “not everyone should vote.”
Siena, this is called “guilt by association.” What Paul Weyrich may or may not have said and done has no bearing whatsoever on what I say and do now. Unless you can establish that I have called for the reestablishment of HUAC and the limiting of the right to vote, and said that gays and feminists were sinners, Paul Weyrich’s alleged opinions have nothing to do with me.
He has written 17 books that contain such gems as accusing President Obama of “doing the bidding of Islamic overlords” and the Muslim Brotherhood of having “a plan to … conquer the United States” and establish a global caliphate. Conspiracy theorist? I don’t know her.
I’m calling BS on the first one. I just searched the manuscript of The Post-American Presidency by Pamela Geller, which I helped write, and the word “overlords” does not appear. Nor is it in any of my own books, although there is no doubt that Obama indefatigably pursued a foreign policy that was in line with the Muslim Brotherhood agenda — to the extent that Egyptian protestors against the Muslim Brotherhood regime in 2013 held up signs saying “Obama supports terrorism.” And as for the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan, according to a captured internal Brotherhood document, the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is engaged in a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” I didn’t write that document; a high-level Brotherhood operative named Mohammed Akram did.
Spencer cofounded Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), both of which have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.
Is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable arbiter of what does and does not constitute a hate group? No, it isn’t.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a national watch group challenging media bias, ranked Spencer America’s second leading Islamophobe (second only to his boss David Horowitz).
Only second? I demand a recount! Seriously, “Islamophobe” is a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into fearing to oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression. I detail this at length in my new book a — preorder your copy here now, Siena.
Anders Behring Breivik, the Oslo terrorist who killed 77 people in 2011, cited Spencer’s work 64 times in his political manifesto.
Breivik 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. Siena, you did not mention that one of those references upbraids me for not calling for violence. Of course, if you had mentioned that, your readers would have realized that your implication, 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 said in that manifesto that he decided to commit a massive act of violence in 1999. I published my first book about Islam in 2002.
Spencer has been banned from the United Kingdom. Yes, that’s right, this man has been banned from an entire country; that’s a little bit impressive, in a twisted kind of way. According to the U.K. Home Secretary’s office, Spencer “is not conducive to the public good.” Keith Vaz, chairman of the British Home Affairs Select Committee, says of Spencer, “the U.K. should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.”
Odd statement for Vaz to make. The UK really bans inflammatory speakers who promote hate? Yet while I am banned from the country for the crime of noting — correctly — that Islam has doctrines of warfare against unbelievers, Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain. The UK Home Office also recently admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.” May’s government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country.
So no, the UK ban doesn’t trouble me at all, and given Britain’s long record of allowing in actual hate preachers, it shouldn’t trouble anyone else, either.
And yet, oddly enough his book has been used as training material for the FBI. He has “led seminars” for the United States Central Command, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and other various intelligence agencies. This is not a reflection of Spencer’s credibility or scholarship but of the U.S. agencies’ lack thereof. In 2011, the FBI apologized “for its offensive training materials,” and Joe Lieberman, former chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, called Spencer’s work “inappropriate” and “inaccurate.”
Did he really? Citation, please? Example? Could we get even one example of my supposed inaccuracies? Not from anyone at Stanford thus far.
It’s curious, then, that Spencer is coming to Stanford. It’s curious that the students of a university that values scholarship and academic accuracy would invite someone devoid of both.
What’s even more curious is that a student such as Siena Fay would be able to think she is a standard-bearer of scholarship and academic accuracy despite the shoddy thinking she displays here.
Ren says
When are muslims going to read scriptures of their faith and be informed on the violence within? When are they going to stop being ignorant and dumb?
PRCS says
When they’re publicly challenged with those texts and BS answers are appropriately debunked.
gravenimage says
I doubt that Siena Fay is Muslim–instead, she is a dhimmi.
larry says
And do these students not know that Malala was shot in the face, by a Muslim, because she committed the “crime” of wanting an education? Get a clue!
DrSique says
They are neither ignorant or dumb. They are moving their Islamist agenda forward and the “useful idiots” on the left are assisting. Using the case of Malala is a perfect example. She was, after all, shot in the face for the intolerable crime of going to school, therefore not being Sharia compliant. To invoke her as THE symbol of Islam shows just how desperate these covert jihadists are.
katherine says
Malala herself is a typical Muslim hypocrite who was never grateful enough to praise the VALUES of the people in the west that saved her from a life of disfigurement. She still doesn’t appreciate the essence of secular humanitarianism and carries on promoting Islamic education and Islamic values – basking in the honors bestowed upon her for ‘bravery’.
She’s just a poster-personality for leftist propaganda – wish someone would tear into her personality and examine/expose her outlook and psyche. NOT from Stanford please.
Might be interesting too if Stanford could offer her a PhD scholarship and make her their mascot.
Jim J Fox says
The true muslim ‘mind’ does not operate in any logical, coherent way- just as Siena Fay’s mind doesn’t, either. Not a good example because ALL religious minds operate on blind faith anyway…
Linde Barrera says
Why am I not surprised that Siena Fay failed to mention it was a male believer of Islam who threw acid in Muslima Malala’s face and only because she was going to school, as her Muslim parents had wanted her to do. So what do you say to that, Siena Fay?
PRCS says
As I recall, she was shot in the face.
WorkingClassPost says
Yes, I’d almost forgotten why Malala is famous in the first place.
I’m fairly sure that had she been attacked by a ‘white supremacist’, that fact would’ve been top centre of Ms Fay’s piece.
Jim J Fox says
Go away until you get your facts right. It’s not THAT difficult….
PRCS says
Irrational arguments:
ISLAM is peaceful because Malala Yousafzai is peaceful.
ISLAM is violent because Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is.
Factual arguments:
Malala Yousafzai is peaceful because she is NOT complying with Islam’s texts.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is violent because he IS complying with Islam’s texts.
Santa Voorhees says
Leftists are not interested in facts. They are interested in feelings.
They feel that Islam doesn’t teach violence, so it must be so.
b.a. freeman says
santa, the leftist-in-the-street, a nominal leftist, is the one uninterested in fact, and going with his feelings; the hard-core left are not so thoughtless. the nominal leftist was trained in indoctrination centers (formerly schools), was fed feel-good leftist propaganda to memorize, and was *not* taught critical thinking, let alone logic, or even common sense. this siena fay person is reacting as programmed, and can quickly become part of a mob that will kill on command.
the hard-core left, OTOH, know very well what is happening. pious muslims are their proxy army, attacking the west and westernized nations from the inside, with troops that are not only willing to die, but desirous of death. not a single hard-core leftist needs to die! all the suspicion, anger, and discomfort of non-leftists (who are becoming fewer in number all the time) are directed at muslims, not leftists, even though we hate the dangerous antics of nominal leftists, who understand neither freedom nor history, and are doomed to lose the former because they don’t know the latter. the thought leaders of the hard left, by letting the faithful nominals know that they *must* protect the innocent muslims, protect their army from attack; they no doubt plan to continue the lies until the citizenry demands martial law to protect them. the left will proclaim their dystopia shortly thereafter, but the army of muslims won’t just disband and go home, and the left won’t easily get the military committing mass murder in muslim banlieue, even with all the deaths sure to have been inflicted on us by then, so i expect civil war between the 2 sides (my money is on the muslims, who are trained from early childhood to be gang-bangers, who will outnumber hard-core leftists by many orders of magnitude, and who love death more than leftists love life). by the time the average citizen, kept in the dark for decades, figures out what is happening, his neck will be on the chopping block, blubbering the shahada and thinking that he has pulled a fast one on his new pious muslim masters.
thus, should siena fay learn how to commit mass murder really soon, she might survive to become first a hard-core leftist and then a pious muslim.
Jaladhi says
>”It’s curious, then, that Spencer is coming to Stanford. It’s curious that the students of a university that values scholarship and academic accuracy would invite someone devoid of both.”<
And this lady is totally devoid of brain!!
Vic says
It is curious that this young woman, at such a prestigious learning and research institution, is so uncurious!
b.a. freeman says
actually, jaladhi and vic, this woman is so incurious and unthinking *precisely* because she is at the center of the hard-core left – the modern western university. she is currently an idiot, but once she learns to get past stupid things like valuing human life and allowing anybody else freedom, she has a chance of becoming a hard-core leftist, and thus a Master of the Universe.
until a pious muslim kills her by beating her to death after raping her.
mortimer says
Malala Yousafzai doesn’t represent Islam any more than Oskar Schindler represented Nazism. They both disregard their faith. Both Nazism and Islam use violence to impose Hatred, supremacism, sadism and cruelty.
– “Islam was NEVER A RELIGION OF PEACE. Islam is the RELIGION OF FIGHTING*.” – Caliph of All Islam, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, as quoted in “Islamic State releases ‘al-Baghdadi message’”, BBC (14 May 2015) (*Arabic “q-t-l” = fight to the death)
– “Muslims must kill disbelievers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” – Dr. Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt, Al Ahram, Apr.7, 2008
– “In the Muslim community, the HOLY WAR IS A RELIGIOUS DUTY, because of the… MISSION TO CONVERT EVERYBODY TO ISLAM EITHER BY PERSUASION OR BY FORCE… Islam is under OBLIGATION TO GAIN POWER OVER OTHER NATIONS.” – from The Muqudimmah by Islamic historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun
– “Islamic HOLY WAR against followers of other religions, such as Jews, IS REQUIRED unless they convert to Islam.” – from al-Amili’s manual of Shia law, Jami-i-Abbasi
– “There is no use in teaching math to a child who does not know the concept of jihad.” – Ahmet Hamdi CamlıDeputy of the AKP, the ruling party in Turkey
– “There is no migration (after the Conquest of Mecca), but Jihad and good intentions, and when you are called for Jihad, you should immediately respond to the call” (Bukhari 4.52.42; 1.2.25; etc).
Rob says
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malala-yousafzai-under-24-hour-guard-after-death-threats-1516644
Santa Voorhees says
“Except he is not an expert. He does not hold a Ph.D., master’s or bachelor’s degree in Islamic studies.”
Then you can ask to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, you know, the leader of ISIS, since he has a Ph.D. in islamic studies!
Norger says
Or check out some of the rantings of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, who was considered perhaps the top Islamic scholar in the world before he was convicted of plotting to unleash a series of terror attacks in NY. Or ponder the fact that the Blind Sheikh, the Birmingham nail bomber (Salman Abedi), and the underwear bomber (Umar Abdulmutallab) were all hafiz, persons who memorized the Koran.
Vic says
I am hoping that this article was sent to Siena Fay. I, many times removed from this young woman, am embarrassed for her shoddy thinking and lack of ethics in researching her subject matter.
And what an indictment on the Stanford Daily editor who seems to be just as ignorant or who knows and yet chooses to print slandering, malicious, and false statements. Maybe no journalistic integrity or honesty are demanded by the editor from its contributing columnists. No doubt when she graduates, she will be sought after by the MSM.
I do hope that after she receives this response, she is not so blinded and will endeavor to seek truth in whatever she decides to write about. She will have actually learned something substantial and life changing while at Stanford–critical thinking and reasoning.
John W says
Just once, once, I want people like this to read the articles cited on here or other sites such as TROP and comment on them or debate them with somebody like Robert. Whether its murder in some African country or no go zones in Sweden or rape gangs in the UK or a number of other things going on out there. And no getting away with simplistic answers. Explain what she thinks is going on in these places, who is doing it, and why.
b.a. freeman says
good luck with that. the left is adept at dodging challenges when they have no defense, so they *won’t* argue with mr. spencer or anybody else.
DV says
Well done, Robert. Another fallacy that frequently works along with the False Appeal to Authority is Credentialism because you are not peer-reviewed, not a professor, etc. One of the more important examples of this combination of the false appeal to authority and credentialism came from some leaders of the past who rhetorically claimed at one time involving a young man… “Is this not the carpenter’s son?” They couldn’t deal with his arguments and so the fallacy attack was used, which also adds the ad hominem fallacy as well.
Indeed, this pharisee playbook continues to be used all of the time by the self-righteous, arrogant left to make it appear that their false criticisms are based on some valid reasons instead of admitting they are inept in confronting the arguments themselves against their positions and propaganda.
D J says
Keith Vaz says he is against inflammatory speech and the promotion of hate?
That is the same Keith Vaz who betrayed his friend Salman Rushdie and led the first Islamic hate demonstrations in Britain in the 1980s.
Yeah right, he’s worth listening to!
KBO Mr Spencer.
Emilie Green says
Arguing from Authority is weak argument,
USN ship: Please divert your course 5 degrees to avoid a collision.
Reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to avoid a collision.
USN ship: Again. Please divert your course 5 degrees to avoid a collision.
Reply: Recommend again that you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to avoid a collision.
****Here’s were the Authority of Do-You-Know-Who-I-Am comes in,
USN ship: This is Admiral Broadbeam,of a US Navy aircraft carrier Minnow. I say again, divert YOUR course at once.
Reply:: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
USN ship: This is the aircraft carrier USS Minnow, the largest ship in the United States Navy. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that’s one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
Reply: This is a Lighthouse No 79. Your call,
Authority doesn’t matter. Truth does.
eduardo odraude says
A nice pictorial analogy…
Max Publius says
Gez, it’s right there in the picture for anyone with eyes. Isn’t the poor girl’s twisted face and mild brain damage given to her by a jihadist’s bullet enough for this Sienna Fay to say there’s a problem with Islam? Or is Fay’s own mind twisted and damaged by imbibing the mental toxin called Islam?
Westman says
If Fay’s level of research is indicative of scholarship at Stanford, don’t waste your money on an education that is simply a pile of debt; an education inferior to that available from the CA community colleges.
The image value of all the ivy-league colleges is declining so rapidly that current students may regret the investment before completing their careers.
Mercy says
I haven’t laughed so hard in a good while! What a thoroughly humiliating roast of Siena Fay this is…
b.a. freeman says
it is indeed funny, but as others have noted, it is also profoundly saddening to see what used to be centers of learning decaying into propaganda mills. worse yet, this poor silly woman, and many millions of other nominal leftists, are dooming not just themselves, but also those of us who have actually looked at islam and wish to defend ourselves and our greater community, the nation. some of us will die proclaiming our various religious beliefs as our heads are chopped off, but most will recite the shahada, and within a few centuries, little or nothing will be known about western civilization other than it was haram.
billybob says
“The truth or falsehood of a statement cannot be determined by the location where the statement was made. The truth or falsehood of a statement can only be determined by examining the salient evidence, wherever it appears.”
The words of the Prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.
eduardo odraude says
Nice. I hadn’t before noticed that implication of the Simon and Garfunkel lyric.
MFritz says
“My dog doesn’t bite so all dogs don’t bite!”
Westman says
Fay: “..Except he is not an expert. He does not hold a Ph.D., master’s or bachelor’s degree in Islamic studies.”
Bill Gates – not a college graduate, expert? – Yes.
Steve Jobs – not a college graduate, expert ? – Yes.
Marc Zukerburg – not a college graduate, expert? – Yes.
Jeff Bezos – only batchelor level, expert? – Yes.
Robert Spencer with successful graduate studies in religion and a adult lifetime in the study of Islam? Not an expert according to an undergrad? Hogwash! Even Imams are afraid to debate him because he can quote their own ideology from its own sources faster than they can cover it up.
The first time I heard an Imam, debating Robert Spencer, admit he didn’t know the Quran as well as Spencer, there was no doubt about Spencer’s expertise.
What a naive student, is Siena Fay, to think an educational institution makes expertise instead of the students own personal efforts to educate themselves. The institution only suggests what it thinkd the student should learn, and, these days, does it so poorly that the students may spend a lifetime below their potential.
Wake up Siena. With your attitude, you’re on a treadmill.
Norger says
Exactly right. And as Robert repeatedly points out, in the real world opinions are and should be based on their evidentiary merit, not on the identity or qualifications (or alleged lack thereof) of the speaker. And that is precisely why Spencer is so effective and his opponents are so desperate to silence him.
Halal Bacon says
um, no, Malala would never become famous if it were not for the violence prescribed by the koran
eduardo odraude says
Siena Fay is a Stanford student? I thought Stanford was selective. But if this student is characteristic, I suppose I was mistaken. Any unbiased person who really goes through Spencer’s point by point response to her piece will see how frightfully clear it is that virtually every statement in her article is uninformed or misinformed, is based on ignorance of facts or failures of logic. How can this be explained? Bias. How ironic that those who shout “bigot” all the time should themselves turn out to be bigots. At least Siena Fay is not a racist. But what a bigot!
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Yeah. These students are the cream of the crop… it just shows how wrong everything is with our world today.
b.a. freeman says
well, eduardo, she may well be racist (anti-white) and sexist (anti-male), as those are prized characteristics of nominal leftists. hard to argue that she’s a capable scholar, though!
gravenimage says
Stanford student: Islamic texts don’t advocate violence because Malala Yousafzai is peaceful
………………………..
Never mind that Malala Yousafzai gave her Nobel Prize money to *fund Jihad terror group Hamas*.
Despite her support for Jihad, pious Muslims earlier shot her in the face and tried to murder her because she is so “un-Islamic” as to have wanted a semi-secular education.
What do pious Muslims really think of her?
“Islamic hardliners announce fatwa on Malala Yousafzai”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9687466/Islamic-hardliners-announce-fatwa-on-Malala-Yousafzai.html
They denounced her as an apostate.
Considering her to be characteristic of pious Muslims is absurd.
eduardo odraude says
Muhammad affirms that those who do not follow him will be slaughtered
On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:
http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com
Lydia says
That is the worst reasoning fallacy I’ve ever seen on this issue!
A total false connection. Instead of pointing to all the isis terrorists all over the landscape that are obeying the koran, including the ones that shot Malala….. (like, hello!), they point to her, when she is a female who was a teenager and they tried to kill her but instead she ended up wounded and disabled. Oh, okay, so she is not violent. Wow! What a great argument! Such proof, such evidence, such a valid point….. (NOT)!
What a joke!!!!
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Yikes, quite a treatise I had to scroll through to post this comment…
Anyway, when I was a communist it was somewhat well known that Malala Yousefzai was herself one. http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/pakistan/SWAT_Marxist_school_Malala_Yousufzai.JPG
Custos Custodum says
By pure coincidence, the same libelous talking point was also featured prominently in the “newpaper” piece concocted by Emily DeRanged for the San Jose Mercury News.
Is Emily the actual writer of the piece published in Siena Fay’s name?
gravenimage says
There are plenty of these dishonest creeps to go around, I am afraid.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Standford must have granted her an advanced placement from her daycare.
Debi Brand says
“Stanford student: Islamic texts don’t advocate violence because Malala Yousafzai is peaceful”
Well, that’s all the proof I need—I just knew it, knew it, somehow, all those endless volumes of the works of the “alleged” “Imams of the din,” the so-called, allegedly, defenders of Sunnah, “Shaykh Al-Islam,” so too, multi-times awarded ijaza recipients, they know nothing of Islam.
Because–as I knew all along–as I affirmatively know now, as stated above, the true “Islamic texts don’t advocate violence,” and I know that fact, as asserted above, “because Malala Yousafzai is peaceful.”
martin says
She certainly displays a corrupt character!
Harry says
Nobody is going to read this long diatribe.
Bu they only have to ask themselves.
“How did Mala get the the way she is?”
Oh damn, it was Muslims shot her..
Why is she still sponging off the British taxpayer?
Oh damn, if she goes back to Pakistan, they’ll shoot her again.
Maybe make a better job of it next time.
D Cripps says
Many thanks, Robert, for including the stances of the 4 Sunni schools (as recognised in the Amman Message). This is helpful in communicating with people who might think that “Reliance of the Traveller” represents ‘just a quarter’ of Sunni Islam.
Guy Macher says
Malala-lalalala was shot in the head by devout Muslim barrows.
Norger says
“All of this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers. It would be illuminating if Siena Fay or someone around her produced some quotations from Muslim authorities she considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic.”
There you have it Siena. That “non-expert ignorant Islamophobe Robert Spencer has responded to your name calling with a learned, substantive response. Why is he wrong?
Islamic mirror says
most dangerous countries in the world for Christians are Muslim
Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Eritrea and Yemen
six of these countries, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, plus Libya. How racist.
EDITORIAL: Christian persecution keeps getting worse,” The Gazette, March 4, 2017:
A recent report by Open Door USA, a nonprofit research firm, identifies 2016 as the “worst year” for worldwide Christian persecution since the organization began monitoring human atrocities 25 years ago.
“Christians throughout the world continue to risk imprisonment, loss of home and assets, torture, beheadings, rape and even death as a result of their faith,” the report stated.
Open Doors documents evidence that says about 90,000 Christians were killed for their faith last year. More than 200,000 experienced religiously motivated violence or persecution.
An earlier report by the Italy-based Center for Studies on New Religions also estimated 90,000 Christians were murdered for faith around the world in 2016. Study author Massimo Introvigne called Christians “the most persecuted religious group in the world.”
We have been reading many article on how badly the Christians are treated in Egypt, yet that country doesn’t even appear on the list of the 10 worst countries. That implies these countries are even worse than Egypt so they must be really bad
Muslim savages didn’t change much over the centuries. Turks used to torture Christians in the Ottoman empire despite paying the tax. They would skin people alive, cut open the belly of pregnant women, throw in the air new born babies and when they fell they fell on a sward. Few people in the west noticed this. Most didn’t care living their selfish lives. So the west never learned from the history of other nations. If they knew the truth and if they were in their right mind they would never allow a single muslim in their countries
There appears to be a common denominator doesn’t there.
Islamic mirror says
a lot of love in Christianity, a lot of anger and hate in Islam. Christian pray for others, muslims pray for themselves. “religion of war” full of “venomous misogyny
• Coran has 114 chapters 6666 word. Jesus mentioned 25 times and mohammed 4 times
• Hate appears towards unbeliever 296 times,
• (kill unbeliever 180 times,
• muslims are the best people.
• 51% (548,190 words) of the Trilogy text (koran, hadith,sira), most of it slanders against non-Muslims
• 20% of quran is loving and peaceful towards allah and muslim brother. Not a single verse peaceful and be nice towards muslim sister
• 154 – 164 verses of curses , jihad and war and killings -31% of the Islamic Trilogy (327,547 words) concerned with jihad-warfare
that’s 80% plus of that obnoxious rag being useless
Muslims are the “best of peoples” (3:110)
Hardly a day goes by without an Islamic terror attack somewhere in the world.
Without the threat of ‘violence ‘Islam has nothing to back it up.The alternative to violence surely is ‘love’which Christianity has in abundance.Therefore Islam will become redundant and shrivel away..Just when is the penny going to drop for Muslims.?
Blatant lies: Islam has NOTHING to do with terror
What terror? Oh…THAT terror!
a small but representative sample of the Qur’an’s violence and hate
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.
the Hadith Book 12 has 1700 verses about Jihad alone.
Many imams say, it’s un-Islamic to “love” the DIRTY KUFAAR??? Muslims who do not show hostility towards the kufaar will not be admitted to Islamic paradise.
Why do we deceive ourselves?
IT’S THE IDEOLOGY, STUPID!
198 islamic jihad attacks; 1777 killed; 1863 wounded; 34 bombings; attacks occurred in 32 countries.
There are 3 killed by jihad attacks every day of the year. ARE ALL OF THE MUSLIM TERRORISTS WHO ARE READY TO GIVE UP THEIR LIVES TRULY ‘INSANE’, or is Islam’s ideology to blame?
Moslems were NEVER told to love Jews or Christians but rather to murder and kill them all for Allah. – no, not even one verse from the Qu ran to show or proof that Mohamed told Moslems to love Christians and Jews… but here we have Mohamed telling Moslems how to treat Christians and Jews…
the Koran and its says (in 14 different verses):
3:117 Believers! Do not become friends with anyone except your own people.
How can Muslims ever be our allies? Non-muslims ’re the despised “Infidels” Muslims are required to reject as friends and protectors (Quran 5:51). Non-muslims ’re the “unclean filth” and “apes and swine.” Crazy to think the Allah-worshipers are allies
Koran 4: 101 “The kuffar are for you a clear enemy.”
If Allah is so powerful, then why are Muslims always so fearfully desperate to prove his supposed greatness by killing for him.
Could Allah not do that by himself without help if he hates infidels?
allah also doesn’t understand the ludicrousness of his well-known contempt for the Jews(..And the Christians but it is mostly the Jews that allah despises..) k(9:30)
A god who hates is NOT the True God!
“The authors of the Quran were hell bent and obsessed with destroying Jews and Christians”
Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhist, Atheists, Agnostic etc. would be fools not to be concerned about all of the hatred and hostility directed towards them in the Quran and Islam’s other “sacred texts.”
unbeliever 1 says
Siena is so dumb that she doesn’t realize she has just increased readership of Jihad Watch by directing them to the site.
Norger says
It is my sincere hope that is the case.
unbeliever 1 says
You are right about that,Mother.Let hope some of those ‘progressives’ and leftists tune and learn the truth of which they have shown wilful ignorance.The cover your ears types (“Lalalalala”).
TKF says
Oh man, my grandfather went to Stanford. He was the roommate and football teammate of Herbert Hoover. It’s shocking to see how far they’ve fallen down the ideological pit of moral superiority. Ideas and arguments stand or fall in the marketplace of intellectual inquiry. Facts and logic either back up your premise or they don’t. Crazy, illogical arguments or overtly hateful calls to violence are exposed for the specious, ideological, agenda driven propaganda they are and rejected out of hand by anyone with a reasoning brain. If your position is sound you need never fear another, opposing one or have any reason whatsoever to refuse to let the other side make an argument in the first place. Hate speech is subjective. Your hate speech is my free speech. Just because you hate it doesn’t make it hate speech.That kind of block thinking is a one way street that only expels but let’s nothing new in. The tape player is on loop. You can’t validate your own views, i.e… it’s true because I say it’s true. If your argument is backed up by evidence, either provided by the sources themselves, or backed up by objective, informed third parties…then that is the argument which prevails. Anything else is a fascist echo chamber.
Sarah says
Save me from more of the bland old tripe about Malala Yousafzai being some kind of miracle Muslim.
Sure, the poor kid did not deserve to be shot in the face. Full stop. Sure, she does deserve the right to an education. Full stop. Sure, I had tremendous empathy for her when she was nearly killed – who wouldn’t? It was a terrible crime, committed by cowards. Full stop.
But Malala Yousafzai has been overblown to the point of insanity. She’s a young woman today – still sheltered, still clearly Muslim, still clearly a close adherent to her culture and religion, despite receiving asylum in the UK I honestly fail to see how in the hell she can be viewed as a positive role model – unless you want to view her as a positive role model for people who come through the other side of surgical rehabilitation from gunshot wounds to the facial region.
Come on people, she got shot. Yes that is sickening. It is wrong. I’m not trying to underplay the horror of what that poor kid endured.
But it doesn’t make her worthy of a Nobel Prize. Or to be elevated as a symbol with the expectation that ‘any reasonable human being’ across the planet should look to, for a sign of peace, hope, serenity and whatever other emotion you want to assign to her.
Getting shot in the face because your Dad ran schools and the Taliban don’t want to see kids, especially female kids getting educated – doesn’t make you a marvel. It makes you a really unlucky kid who was nearly killed by cowards who disagreed with your family’s position on religious ideology. It makes you lucky to be alive. It makes you lucky to have a father who still believed despite his feral religious beliefs that you deserved an education, all the same.
It does not make you some kind of modern day Joan of Arc type figure to be worshiped and upheld as a model of whatever it is, that her supporters think she represents. She was a kid, now a young woman who has been reduced to an object that can be flashed around whenever it suits those who own a piece of her, to virtue signal.
And she’s a shockingly poor example of a ‘good’ Muslim female to uphold. She still to this day, does not have her own voice. Every-time she speaks up – its to rabbit out whatever she has been told to say by those who own a piece of her. She’s a lump of meat for the Left, that’s all.
I am glad she is alive. I am glad she’s getting a good education. I am glad that she is much safer than she was, back in Pakistan. But I’ll reserve my hero worship for people who actually say and do things to warrant it.
Harry says
Exactly so.
She should reject her evil religion.
What was done to her is advocated in the Koran.
Twerzig says
It will be interesting when they start to build artificial intelligences of the worlds religions. What will Jesus be like, will he be good or bad.
Wojciech Nowinski says
Excellent response Robert. Any decent human being will see where the truth lies just by reading your calm and pointed responses.