My latest in PJ Media:
If we all agree to ignore the passages in the Qur’an that enjoin believers to be violent toward non-Muslims, they’ll go away, right? If we deny that such passages even exist, jihadis will cease acting upon them, won’t they? That appears to be the view of Nathan Spannaus, a hustling young academic (or academic hustler, if you prefer) who identifies himself on Twitter as a “Middle East and Islamic Studies Ph.D” and author of a book called Preserving Islamic Tradition. Writing in the NYU Law School publication Just Security Wednesday, the far-seeing Spannaus has some big news: Mohiusunnath Chowdhury, a Muslim who attacked police with a sword outside Buckingham Palace, was apparently inspired to do so by…me. Spannaus claimed that Chowdhury’s reading of my work, along with that of Tommy Robinson and Christian scholar David Wood, “to reinforce in his mind the religious necessity of jihad.”
The day this article appeared was indeed April Fool’s Day, but it looks as if Spannaus was serious. As ridiculous as his claim was, however, he was generous enough to note that “Spencer has pushed back on the characterization that his writings helped inspire Chowdhury, arguing that a Muslim doesn’t need non-Muslim voices to justify jihadism. Fair enough — and questions of inspiration can be complicated. But evidence shows how seriously Chowdhury took these figures’ views. He saved numerous articles from Jihad Watch, including a list of Quranic passages extolling violence, and he shared Woods’ videos on jihadist attacks with the undercover agents, describing them as potential options….”
There is no doubt that, at least by his own account, Mohiusunnath Chowdhury did read my website Jihad Watch, along with material by Robinson and Wood. But would Nathan Spannaus actually have us believe that Chowdhury would not have had access to the Qur’an if not for Jihad Watch? Does Spannaus actually believe that Islamic jihadis don’t read the Qur’an themselves, and that if “Islamophobes” would just shut up about what’s in it, no Muslims would know its contents, and there would be no jihad terrorism?
Spannaus does mention that Chowdhury had been reading jihad manuals and material from al-Awlaki and other jihad preachers, but he still joins the relentlessly biased Lizzie Dearden of the Independent, whose article on Chowdhury a few weeks ago is the source of his claim, in charging that Tommy, David Wood and I are really the ones who set the poor, peaceful lad on the path to perdition.
There is much more. Read the rest here.
CogitoErgoSum says
When a person wants to ignore certain verses of the Koran he needs to explain how abrogation works as applied to the Koran when the verses are placed in proper chronological order. Which verses are the ones that should be ignored then?
m says
Nathan Spannaus knows the answer and pretends he doesn’t: the more peaceful verses of Meccan are abrogated by the warlike verses of Medina.
An Islamic scholar noted that the VERSE OF THE SWORD (K.9.5) abrogates over 100 peaceful, Meccan verses.
Nathan Spannaus knows that and pretends to his listeners that he is unaware. He dissembles.
jca reid says
The order the Chapters are in the Koran is that the longest Chapter is first, then the second longest, third longest & so on.
CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, most Korans have the chapters arranged from longest to shortest so as to help Muslims memorize the Koran. But that is not the order in which the chapters (or surahs) were originally “revealed” to Muhammad. If the surahs were to be arranged in chronological order it would be easier for people to recognize that the more violent verses came to Muhammad towards the end of his life. As the number of his followers increased the exhortations in the Koran became increasingly more violent concerning fighting Infidels. Surah 9 containing the infamous verse 9:29 came not in the ninth surah, if arranged in chronological order, but actually in number 113 of 114 surahs — second to last. That verse 9:29 abrogates any earlier verses advocating peace with Infidels and the “to you your religion and to me my religion” attitude. Among the last words coming from Allah are those that tell Muslims to fight the Infidels until everyone submits to Allah’s preferred religion of Islam — by conversion, payment of the Jizya or death. Arranging the surahs so they are out of chronological order makes it more difficult to understand what Allah really wants – especially for people who think they already know it all.
Bikinis not Burkas says
The Quran was NOT REVEALED to Muhammad, the fat white dwarf made them up in his own evil mind!
Unknown guy says
What is your opinion about verse taken out of context?
Giacomo Latta says
Any version of the koran that I have read indeed is vaguely, not perfectly, in order of longest to shortest. Your claim that this is to help readers remember the contents is the first instance of such a claim according to my eyes. Reading the contents you will notice that the later the book the more Muhammad was running out of ideas, including one book reserved for bad-mouthing his uncle. What kind of god would insist that a single personal attack be included in a supposed holy book?
CogitoErgoSum says
Unknown guy, to get proper context for a verse in the Koran I suggest putting the surahs in chronological order and then finding out what was going on in Muhammad’s life at the time a particular verse was revealed. This is because many of the verses came about so as to justify something Muhammad had done or wanted to do.
Giacomo, this is what a Muslim imam has come up with regarding arrangement of the surahs:
https://imamyahyasite.wordpress.com/list-of-surahs-in-the-quran/
Muslims have known about the surahs being out of chronological order for centuries and they are even the ones who came up with the concept of abrogation of verses in order to account for certain contradictions they noticed in the Koran. When the surahs are arranged in chronological order it becomes easier to understand the Koran … but apparently harder to memorize. I don’t know why though. Maybe the real reason is just to confuse Infidels.
gravenimage says
Unknown guy wrote:
What is your opinion about verse taken out of context?
……………….
You cannot simply say that a verse is taken out of context–you have to note what the supposedly correct context is.
Muslims are *always* claiming that Infidels are taking the Qur’an and other texts of Islam unspecifically out of context–as if this is an actual argument.
Unknown guy says
What is the context of verse 9.5?
mortimer says
If Sayyid Qutb (who sported a Hitler mustache), Muhammad Faraj (who wrote ‘The Neglected Duty’), Maulana Maududi (who wrote books on the ideology of Islamic supremacism), Pakistani Brigadier Khan (who wrote a book on the philosophy of terrorism), Anwar Awlaki who trained English-speaking jihadis), Anjem Choudary (who trained several successful terrorists in England), Osama bin Laden, Caliph Al-Baghdadi and various OFFICIAL ISLAMIC MANUALS OF SHARIA LAW ALL agree on the jihad doctrine … then who is Robert Spencer … or anyone else …. to disagree with their substantial agreement? We OBSERVE they agree and we OBSERVE that the authors teach similar ideas about jihad-terrorism.
When someone merely QUOTES the above ISLAMIC IDEOLOGUES, it is different from PROMOTING what they teach.
Robert Spencer is WARNING others about the mindset of the JIHADI and deploring the VIOLENCE and SAVAGERY of it, rather than soliciting jihad terrorism.
No jihadi is going to learn jihadism from a dirty kafir! That would be beneath his dignity.
I think Nathan Spannaus is a paid Islamist apologist and his job is to whitewash Islam to keep the dirty kufaar from learning the authentic teachings about jihad. Spannaus should be forensically audited by the CIA and FBI.
Michael Copeland says
“Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace” – Ibrahim Sulaiman
gravenimage says
We all know what “peace” looks like under Islam…
Shovington says
Oh my word! What an apologist, making excuses for murderers. Murder is murder, regardless of who does it. Nathan Spannaus is a denyer of basic humanity. How ridiculous that he accepts words written in a book 1300 years old, as prediction for murder. He should go live in the Islamic world and preach his garbage. Muslims love Whites who betray the western world with Islamic verses of supremacy and hate. He could make quite a living preaching this bigoted and biased nonsense, that Muhammad never even wrote himself (out of laziness, but also his limited literacy).
mortimer says
Nathan Spannaus is a quack selling the snake-oil of a ‘new, improved, reformed Islam’.
Any real scholar knows that the ‘GATES OF IJTIHAD’ were closed in the 12th century and cannot be reopened.
To ‘reform’ Islam is considered a blasphemous heresy called ‘BIDA’ (innovation).
(Al-Nasa’i, I, p.143) the Prophet says, “Verily the most truthful communication is the Book of Allah, the best guidance is from Muhammad, and the worst of all things are BIDA (innovations); every innovation is heresy, every heresy is error, and every error leads to hell.”
mortimer says
NOTICE TO ALL ISLAMISTS and all Muslims generally … PLEASE DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING VERSES IN THE KORAN and DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF JIHAD published by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia …
The Koran’s 164 Jihad Verses: K 2:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244; 3:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167,169, 172-173, 195; 4:71-72, 74-077, 84, 89-91, 94-95,100-104; 5:33, 35, 82; 8:1, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 39-48, 57-60, 65-75; 9:5, 12-14, 16, 19-20, 24-26, 29, 36, 38-39, 41, 44, 52, 73, 81, 83, 86, 88, 92, 111, 120, 122-123; 16:110; 22:39, 58, 78; 24:53, 55; 25:52; 29:6, 69; 33:15, 18, 20, 23, 25-27, 50; 42:39; 47:4, 20, 35; 48:15-24; 49:15; 59:2, 5-8, 14; 60:9; 61:4, 11, 13; 63:4; 64:14; 66:9; 73:20; 76:8.
Official Definition of Jihad according to Saudi Arabia:
“Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.” – footnotes on p.39, ‘The Noble Koran’, published by King Fahd Complex for Publication of the Quran, Madinah, KSA.
(Nathan Spannaus … take note … we disagree with Islamism … and want Muslims to abandon ISLAMISM … hard to do, because Muslim COUNTRIES are promoting Islamism … DIDN’T YOU KNOW THAT, Nathan ?)
mortimer says
Why doesn’t Nathan Spannaus tell Saudi Arabia to stop giving people free copies of the Koran … It leads to terrorism, doesn’t it?
Why doesn’t Nathan Spannaus tell Saudi Arabia to stop teaching jihadism from kindergarten to college?
mortimer says
In the 1930s, the Oxford Peace Movement enemies of Winston Churchill warned people that Churchill was wrong. Winston Churchill had read Mein Kampf and Hitler’s infamous beer-hall speeches.
Nathan Spannaus is like the Oxford Peace Movement opponents of Churchill. He will say anything to prevent Western people from learning the truth about jihadism.
gravenimage says
+1
Daniel Triplett says
We view Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, et al, as leaders of our enemy, whom must be silenced or eliminated because they do the most to advance the opposing cause and gain ground for our enemy. Think of the motivation, money, and effort we put forth toward silencing these voices.
From their perspective, and in much the same way, they hold hostile the “resistance” of Robert Spencer, David Wood, Bill Warner, et al.
To intimidate into silence Spencer, Wood, Warner, and the rest of us wouldn’t eliminate the conflict. This would only give hope and vigor to our enemy that they’re winning, which accelerates their motivation and confirms their objective.
We need more Spencers, not fewer. Consider all that’s at stake.
We’re in a 1400 year zero-sum war. The sooner we choose sides and decide to win, the better.
mortimer says
Wealthy Arabs (possibly the Muslim Brotherhood) are hiring Western apologists for Islam to silence the counterjihad’s exposés.
That is why snake-oil salesmen like Nathan Spannaus and Craig Considine do not debate with Robert Spencer. They know that their hokum doesn’t stand up to scholarly scrutiny.
Wellington says
I agree, mortimer, and I would apply this too to Leftists who don’t want to debate those who disagree with them but just want them to shut up, and if non-Leftists don’t shut up then demonization by the Left follows as a matter of course.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“snake-oil salesmen like Nathan Spannaus and Craig Considine do not debate with Robert Spencer.”
Wouldn’t now be the perfect time for a debate about Islam? Because of coronavirus, the debate would have to be online, which would eliminate the expense of any security problems (from murderous kafirs trying to assassinate the debating imam).
Tony Naim says
The root cause of Violence in Islam is in the Koran: exactly what Robert Spencer says. Not one bit different. To claim otherwise is either deliberate ignorance or willful stupidity on the part of any idiot in Academia.
The continued daily preaching, teaching and practice of Dhimmitude in Islam provides the fertile ground for violence to express itself so commonly by many muslims. A comprehensive system of social, economic , legal rules and norms articulated in the Fourteenth century by ibn Al-kayyim Al -jouziya ( Hanbali imam) is what makes Dhimmitude what it is.
Basically practical policies or translations of the general guidelines articulated in the Koran.
All under the sleepy watch of our state department.
No one in our government has been intelligent enough to formulate a policy to deal with cause of terrorism instead of its end result!
Michael Copeland says
“Violence is the heart of Islam” – Ayatollah Yazdi
unbeliever1 says
Perhaps this guy (name’s kind of long)and others like him only get the true understanding of the Qur’an by reading articles by Tommy Robinson, David Wood and Robert Spencer.
Thumbs up to Jihad Watch, and I hope that more Muslims get to check it out.
gravenimage says
Were this true, then there would have been no Jihad before Robert Spencer and other Anti-Jihadists came along, which is clearly not the case.
Wellington says
Reflecting upon this article and the comments, and in particular mortimer’s 6:54 P.M. post, I couldn’t help but think how equally risible it would be to contend that certain individuals (e.g., Winston Churchill) opposed to what was in Mein Kampf actually mentioned disturbing passages from this work of Hitler’s and, when Hitler read what these individuals cited from his own work, this was the chief reason why Hitler acted as he did. Yes, incorrect to blame Adolf, correct to blame Winston.
The sheer idiocy of what passes for thinking among a certain portion of mankind is indeed often laughable but it is also frequently ominous and dangerous. This of course will be lost on idiots, including well educated idiots, respecting whom there are many. I know this first hand since I functioned in academia for a third of a century and which is why I came up with an acronym I have mentioned before here at JW. It is DWD and stands for Dodos With Doctorates.
OLD GUY says
How can you ignore the violence in the Quran when you see the violent murder, rape, and abuse the islamic followers perpetrate on the non-muslim world? STOP the migration of islamic followers into the western countries. We can’t live side by side with these violent people.
gravenimage says
Osama bin Laden. Anwar al-Awlaki. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Robert Spencer.
…………….
Grotesque calumny–like saying that Winston Churchill was responsible for Adolf Hitler embracing Fascism.