Author’s note: This is the third segment of my review of Robert Spencer’s new revised and expanded edition of Did Muhammad Exist?. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.
Chapter 5 discusses the work of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, the earliest biographers of Muhammad, in considerable detail, and shows how totally unreliable they are as historians, even though all subsequent histories and biographies are ultimately derived from them. Spencer concludes the chapter in this manner, “If Islam did not develop as Muslims believe it did and as the earliest Islamic sources explain, then how and why did it develop at all? A clue to this comes from the anomalies surrounding Islam’s Arabian setting.” This leads us into Chapter Six, “The absence of Arabia,” which, drawing on the work of Dan Gibson and Patricia Crone, casts doubt on the traditional account of the rise of Islam in Arabia, and denies that Mecca was ever a center of trade and pilgrimage.
Chapter Seven, “The Embarrassment of Muhammad,” sets out to answer the following question: ”Why would anyone invent a hero and then invest him with weaknesses? Why would anyone fashion a portrait of a founding father, the fashioner and unifier of the community, the exemplar in all things, and make him anything less than admirable in every way?… But if Muhammad was an invented character, why fabricate a story that enemies could use to portray him—and the nascent Islamic community—in a less than flattering light?”
The story of Muhammad marrying his former daughter-in-law reflects badly on his character. But it was very probably invented for theological reasons. Spencer relied on the research and scholarship of Cornell University professor David S. Powers, an expert on Islamic history and law who wrote “an extraordinarily well-researched and well-reasoned book-length examination of the Zaynab incident and its historical and theological status.” In it, Powers notes that “as the Last Prophet, Muhammad could not have a son who reached puberty; otherwise, as Muqatil states, that son would have been a prophet.” (Muqatil ibn Sulayman (d. 767) was an early commentator on the Qur’an.) Suddenly, then, the presence of Muhammad’s adopted son takes on immense importance to Islamic theology. Powers explains:
The logic of this argument applies not only to Muhammad’s natural sons, none of whom reached puberty, but also to his adopted son Zayd, who did. By virtue of his status as Muhammad’s adult son, Zayd b. Muhammad was a member of the Abrahamic family to which the mantle of prophecy had been entrusted as an exclusive possession. Similarly, Muhammad’s grandson, Usama b. Zayd b. Muhammad, was also a member of this family. In theory, the mantle of prophecy might have passed from Muhammad to Zayd, and from Zayd to Usama.
The Muslim community had no choice but to construct its foundation narrative in such a way as to marginalize both Zayd and Usama. However, Muhammad’s repudiation of Zayd did not fully eliminate the threat to the theological doctrine of the finality of prophecy. This is because at the time of Zayd’s repudiation in 5 A.H. [a.d. 626], he was already a grown man. The fact that the Prophet had an adult son named Zayd b. Muhammad conflicted with the assertion in v. 40 that “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men.” For the sake of theological consistency, it was important to demonstrate that the man who had been Muhammad’s son failed to outlive the Prophet. Like Muhammad’s repudiation of Zayd, the death of the Beloved of the Messenger of God some time prior to the year 11/632 was a theological imperative.
Islamic tradition indeed holds that Zayd died in the Battle of Muta in the year 629—three years before Muhammad himself. These stories were invented to make a theological and political point, in this case, that “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men,” and hence is “the Seal of the Prophets.”
In chapter eight, Spencer takes a close look at the Koran, and the extravagant claims made for it by Muslims. He is able to show that the Koran abounds in errors, inconsistencies and contradictions. And it is highly unlikely that it has remained unaltered for hundreds of years. As Spencer concludes,
It is undeniable that throughout the Middle Ages, at the apex of the great Islamic empires, Arab and Muslim armies had the words of the Qur’an on their lips as they conquered huge expanses of territory. But in what are generally understood as the earliest days of Islam, when they conquered Syria in 637, Armenia and Egypt in 639, North Africa beginning in the early 650s, and probably Cyprus in 654, there was no Qur’an for them to brandish. Nor is it even certain that they had one for many years after that. Recall that the Qur’an makes no appearance in the surviving documents and artifacts of the Muslims until around six decades after the Arab conquests began. And when the Qur’an finally emerged, it may have been considerably different from the Qur’an that Muslims revere today.
mortimer says
EMBARRASSMENT? Well, the caliphs used the example of Mohammed to cover up their own personal embarrassments.
The legends of Mohammed were fabricated in such way that they bolstered the needs of the Umayyad or Abbasid dynasties whenever they needed political justification for their conduct. If the caliph was a womanizer, he could point to the example of Mohammed. If Mohammed slaughtered his enemies, the caliph could as well. Every crime of the caliphs could be justified by a new hadith about Mohammed.
Alfredo says
This explains why Mohammad bin Salman the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, now wants to get rid of 90% of the Hadith. What would be left then would be the bare bones provided by the Qur’an!
Thus without the Hadith, Muslims apologists could not make any coherent case for their religion.
Following the war between the Umayyads against the eventual winners, the Abbasids, the inevitable conclusion is that what we have now is an elaborate spider web of fabricated and fanciful fairy tales.
mortimer says
To Alfredo: it is interesting that you say 90% of the hadiths (proper plural: ahadith) should be ‘gotten rid of’. It should be noted that Bukhari already got rid of most of the hadiths.
Bukhari (البخاري) ) stated that he picked less than 7000 Hadiths out of a pool of Hadiths of 600,000, just over 1 %. Of those remaining hadiths, we have a grand total of 5550 which he deemed to be reliable. The rest are classified as ‘unreliable’, but the horrible part is that many of ‘AUTHENTIC’ hadiths are advocating violations of human rights and war crimes. The moral standards advocated in the hadiths are incompatible with modern human rights codes.
Jack Cade says
S is used to create most plurals in English. Ahadith is not Arabic but ersatz Arabinglish.
gravenimage says
Jack, we really have to use Arabic terms to properly speak about Islam–just as it was necessary to use some German terms to speak about Nazism. The main problem is Islam–not our using some Arabic terms to oppose it.
CogitoErgoSum says
How can Muhammad be the “Seal of the Prophets” when Jesus (a prophet) is not dead and will return again? He will be able to abolish the Jizya and so will have the authority to undo things that Muhammad had done. Seems to me Muslim Jesus is greater than Muhammad but the Muslims mostly ignore him. Okay, so he was a total failure his first try at being a prophet but when he returns he is supposed to live a long life and rule over the Muslims for 40 years. I don’t know what is supposed to happen after Muslim Jesus dies – judgment day? But then why do they have a grave waiting for him in Medina?
Mike Ramirez says
According to Shi’a theology, the Islamic belief is that there are two central figures in the last days; the hidden Imam, al Mahdi and Isa, the Islamic Jesus. This runs parallel to the New Testament prophecy of there being the one known as the “anti-christ” and the false prophet. Apparently, when the Islamic Jesus dies after 40 years and is buried next to Muhammad, al-Mahdi continues ruling the world – kind of like añ Islamic paradise on earth. ???
Kepha says
Embarrassments? Much as I respect Ibn Warraq, my own take on Mo’s stealing of Zayd’s wife and his bloodthirstiness is that Mo’s ethic was simply that of a manipulative and bloodthirsty tyrant.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Kepha. Only decent people consider this embarrasing–not those who adhere to the barbarism of Islam. Same with the enslavement and murder of Infidels and the rape of little Aisha.
Mike Ramirez says
It seems like Mo’s MOdus operandi is much the same as well-known cult leaders: Mind control over followers, threats of death for Apostasy, complete rule of how followers are to live in obedience, cruel and unusual punishments for dissenters, polygamous marriages, especially for the “prophet” who can have as many wives as he wants including taking the wives of other men in the group, child marriages, etc. The reality is that Islam is a Religious Death Cult, an Enemy Threat Doctrine, Totalitarian Supremacist Ideology, and Existential Threat to Western Civilization. Yet, enjoys protection as being a recognized “World Religion” that has some bad apples; “some people who do something” and who really don’t represent Islam.
That is how Islam has been able to spread its roots of terror throughout the world – our leaders give Islam the benefit of the doubt.
mortimer says
Kepha assumes the existence of Mohammed, but are the anecdotes about Mohammed (made 200 years after his death) reliable?. Many life-time scholars of the Islamic literature have concluded that the stories about Mohammed are concocted, because they fail most of the tests of historicity.
It doesn’t help the case of historical Mohammed that large numbers of hadiths contradict one another, e.g. Mohammed drank water sitting down or in another hadith, he drank water standing up. We thus cannot with any certainty conclude anything about Mohammed. He is similar to a mirage. What is factual is that the stories of Mohammed reflect details in the lives of some of the early caliphs. Is that a mere coincidence?
Mike Ramirez says
The dilemma is that 1.6 Billion Muslims still believe that Muhammad existed; was the last and final prophet to mankind and that Muslims are the best of all people. The indoctrination that fuels the Muslim mindset with feelings of superiority cannot be stopped by discrediting the existence of Muhammad. They will still believe that their “Allah” exists as the true God whose command is to make the whole world Islamic. The Kaliph takes the place of Muhammad, or in the case of Shi’a, they are to literally create enough world chaos and destruction that expedites the appearance of al-Mahdi to come onto the world scene and straighten everybody out through Sharia rule.
gravenimage says
If Muhammad is legendary, why were stories invented about him that portray him in a negative light?
………………….
Pious Muslims don’t consider this sort of ugliness negative.
Wellington says
Agreed.
tim gallagher says
I agree with that, gravenimage. The creatures that made Muhammad up were evil, barbaric people who had no idea of what decent behaviour was, according to the standards of the more civilised peoples of the world. Even now, even in the modern world, unbelievably, these Muslim creatures seem to think Muhammad’s unbelievably evil ways of behaving are quite OK. To civilised people, Muhammad is an extremely evil person whereas Muslims actually think that his disgusting behaviours (murdering people, pedophilia, etc) are patterns of behaviour to be imitated. islam belongs in history’s dustbin. It is a disgusting left over from mankind’s far more barbaric times.
JANET says
I agree with Tim G and Gravenimage and the con job that Islam really is is the Truth.
It is time to return great amounts of the islamics here to their original places of origin. They are in the USA to take over not become Americans. There is a disgusting part of our government that is not brave enough to do the right things to make the country safe.
JimJFox says
Indeed
Alfredo says
What’s so pious about robbing, raping and murdering infidels?
It seems the followers of Muhammad, supposedly “The Seal of the Prophets”
have a very inverted sense of what’s right and wrong.
mortimer says
GI is correct (Pious Muslims don’t consider this sort of ugliness negative.)
The prophet can do no wrong. What upsets most Muslims is to discover imperfections in the Koran. Many are leaving because the Koranic text is filled with errors of all kinds, there are no early mss, and the Koran contradicts the hadiths and the Koran contradicts itself and common sense.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the replies.
Aussie Infidel says
Whatever the truth about the Muhammad of Islam, the stories that form his legend are a reflection of the mindset of their authors, who from their exploits, would have been brutal warriors. I can’t think of any warlord throughout history, who was anything but a narcissist and a psychopath – not the “excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day” as claimed in the Quran. (Q33:21).
The Muhammad of the Quran would only seem excellent to people with the same mindset (birds of a feather), but their legacy lives on in the pages of the Quran, to indoctrinate the minds of Muslim hotheads for evermore. And the “tiny minority” of these psychopaths who become jihadis, and act upon the Quranic dictates to kill infidels, keep the rest of them in check, because the penalty for leaving Islam is death.
To rid the world of jihadis, we have to first get rid of the motivation that drives them. And if that does not occur from the evidence presented by Spencer in his book – and I seriously doubt it will in time to prevent further drastic Islamization of the West – then other more punitive measures will need to be taken, like declaring Islam a threat to our national security, and banning it forthwith.
Islam has no place in a civilized society.
Mike Ramirez says
The truth is that Islam will continue to be an existential threat to our national security just as it is a threat to all non-Muslim societies throughout the world. Why? Because Islam won’t be banned and even Muslims know that. That’s what emboldens them even more.
Aussie Infidel says
Mike, Sadly I think you are probably correct. One of the reasons why politicians won’t ban Islam is that they regard it as ‘just another religion’, without knowing anything much about it. And stupidly they have built protection for ALL religions into our Constitutions without understanding that some religions like Islam, are more political than religious – and basically an evil criminal enterprise.
Most politicians on the Right are religious people themselves, and simply cannot bring themselves to ban another ‘sacred belief’, even though most of them have no idea of its tenets. Many (but not all) politicians on the Left are atheists, and regard Islam as an ally to rid the world of their old enemy, Christianity; which they regard as an enemy of their socialist ideology, as Marx declared, “religion is the opium of the people”.
I came from the Left a long time ago, so I understand their attitudes and strategies. I have lobbied politicians of all shades on this issue for decades, and only ever met one or two who have read the Quran. Most of them are thoroughly ignorant about Islam and treat it like one of the ‘Tales From The Arabian Nights’; and they have no idea of the threat it poses to Western civilization.
Mike Ramirez says
Thank you for your comments and insight, Aussie Infidel. Regarding the religious right, many in the Interfaith movement gullibly believe that peaceful coexistence can be achieved with Islam. The Interfaith and “Building Bridges” movement is a Muslim Brotherhood project to deceive the West. The MB has succeeded in that arena.
gravenimage says
Banning Islam would also leave Infidels unable to study it and determine that it is a threat. Muslims, meanwhile, would have no problems flouting Infidel laws. Robert Spencer has already noted that he does not want to live under a tyranny that tells you what you can and cannot read.
Best to keep Muslims out of the west to begin with. Before the invasion of Muslims into the west we were largely safe from Jihad.
Aussie Infidel says
GI, By banning Islam, I don’t mean burning Qurans. I mean banning its practice as it is currently observed by Muslims – teaching violence against unbelievers or those who wish to leave the religion. It should be banned, not because of its religious content, but because it is a threat to the security of all Western countries.
I believe that all mosques should be closed, but Muslims who wanted to practise their religion in private could be left to do so. Any Muslim who violates the rules should be deported if possible, or jailed. Indeed the hatred and violence in the Quran, and the barbarity of Sharia Law should be taught to all Western school children – and our politicians – to shake them out of their complacency, and because we will still have to deal with Muslims for other reasons.
Of course, keeping them out of our countries in the first place would have been the most sensible approach – the one time I agree with apartheid.
Sorry I can’t always reply in a timely fashion, as I have a very sick wife with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
gravenimage says
Aussie Infidel, I am very sorry to hear about your wife. I know this is a very difficult syndrome to deal with.
As for Islam, aspects of the creed like threatening apostates with death are *already* illegal here–we are just not enforcing our laws. This is the main problem. I also agree that Mosques that preach violench should be investigated and shut down. JIhadists should be deported.
I also agree that the truth about Islam should be widely known–and widely taught. That is a major part pf what Jihad Watch is for.
Mike Ramirez says
Therein is the other problem, gravenimage. Keeping Muslims out of any Western society would be considered “Discrimination.” We have literally handed them the advantage to defeat Western Civilization. The ignorance of the West has failed to thoroughly know how to deal with this enemy and gives Islam the benefit of the doubt plus protected religion status. Failure to ban Islam is a failure to save the future of Western Civilization. Be prepared for dhimmitude in a New World Order. While we have tried to warn others they took sides with the enemy instead.
gravenimage says
President Trump took some good first steps, but Biden has overturned these common-sense limits.
But as long as we have Muslims flooding into the west we will have Jihad terror and attempts to impose Shariah law.
Then, I note that you have not addressed Robert Spencer’s concerns over the state dictating what citizens can and cannot read and say. Generally this has not turned out well for the victims–and is certainly has not led to a stand against tyranny, Islamic or otherwise.
I doubt that this ommision is accidental.
Here is Robert Sencer’s reply from that other thread:
Your conclusion is false. I oppose banning belief systems because I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state where thought police govern what I may or may not say, what books I may own, etc. This has nothing to do with “protecting Islam as a religion.” As I explained to you in our email exchange, if existing laws against sedition, polygamy, female genital mutilation, and more were enforced when Muslims were the perpetrators, a great deal of the problem of jihad terror in the U.S. would disappear, as Sharia adherence and jihad violence often go together. But these laws are not being enforced. It is our societal weakness that is in large part creating the problem.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/07/the-man-who-wasnt-there-muhammad-in-the-full-light-of-history#comment-2358877
The fact is that, as Robert Spencer says, we need to enforce our own civilized laws. The implication that this is not happening because we have not destroyed the First Amendment is quite mistaken. It has more to do with denial and “political correctness”–neither of which are apt to disappear if we destroy American freedoms–in fact this would likely just embolden this sort of madness.
Edmund says
In my country spread of communism and fascist ideology are banned. It not means that I cannot have legally ex. Mein Kampf or all Lenin books at home, play games or watch movies but I cannot raise such banners at street or form political party of such etc.
So banned Islam = no Mosques, no black banners, no Imams, no islamic schools and any spread of such ideology would be penalized. But it would not happen fast, becouse people and goverments are blind in thier “political corectness” views.
gravenimage says
Edmund, is Germany your country? Actually, creeping socialism is a probem there, despite communism being formally banned.
I believe that the freedoms of the First Amendment have served us well. Moreover, the US is actually less far gone re Islam than is Germany.
The biggest problem im Germany is that so many Muslims have been allowed to flood in. Having that many Muslims Islam is definitely going to be a serious problem–especially given that Muslims flout Infidel laws in any case.
Mike Ramirez says
You want the Truth, gravenimage? Can You Handle The Truth???
The Truth for you and Mr. Spencer is that Mr. Spencer is very naive to equate a death cult ideology that wants to kill you the same as an ideology that guarantees you the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. So, if Mr. Spencer really believes that banning the Islamic death cult ideology that wants to kill you is also going to result in banning the ideology that guarantees your Freedom, then we are really in a heap of trouble with that line of thinking. The Truth is that in the final analysis only one ideology will prevail in this scenario. America won’t ban Islam but Islam will certainly have no qualms about banning America’s ideology as well as that of the UK, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, etc. Islam has vowed to prevail and we are allowing that to happen because we are nice guys and like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
gravenimage says
Yet more from Mike Ramirez:
You want the Truth, gravenimage? Can You Handle The Truth???
The Truth for you and Mr. Spencer is that Mr. Spencer is very naive to equate a death cult ideology that wants to kill you the same as an ideology that guarantees you the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
…………………..
Utter calumny against Robert Spencer.
Note that most of us here who oppose Islam actually support freedom–but sadly, this is hardly the case with everyone here.
The idea that one is naive unless they want to destroy he freedoms of the civilized west for Islam is just bizarre.
More:
So, if Mr. Spencer really believes that banning the Islamic death cult ideology that wants to kill you is also going to result in banning the ideology that guarantees your Freedom, then we are really in a heap of trouble with that line of thinking. The Truth is that in the final analysis only one ideology will prevail in this scenario.
…………………..
This is like saying that Fascism would have prevailed here if we didn’t destroy our freedoms for the Nazis. Except that this didn’t happen. Bad ideologies need to be called out and exposed–that is a big part of what Jihad Watch is for. Banning any reference to a creed–including condemning it–does not actually work.
More:
America won’t ban Islam but Islam will certainly have no qualms about banning America’s ideology as well as that of the UK, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, etc. Islam has vowed to prevail and we are allowing that to happen because we are nice guys and like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
…………………..
Not wanting to destroy our own values and freedoms does not make us naive as you claim–in fact, that is exactly what places like the nations you cited are doing–they are shutting down freedom of speech in many cases; and we see how that is working for them.
It is in fact the First Amendment and the Constitution that are bulwarks to our freedoms. Destroying these values for Muslims will *not* keep us safer, despite your claims.
Robert Spencer says
I made no such equation. You persist in misunderstanding what I am saying. Are you stupid, or malevolent, or both? In any case, I stand by my statements. If we start banning beliefs in America, as this administration has already set out to do, we will become a totalitarian state and not distinguishable in any important way from Sharia states that prohibit free speech on various issues as well. I do not want to become my enemy by fighting him. I prefer to live in a free society. Does this mean I am advocating not resisting jihad and Sharia? No. I believe we can and should oppose jihad and Sharia without giving up our own freedoms or changing the nature of our free society. The Biden administration may soon make this whole discussion moot anyway by destroying our free society anyway. But I’m not going to participate in this effort.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
Mike Ramirez says
Thank you for your thoughts and opinions, gravenimage, no matter how different we view things and take issue with one another. That is the neat thing that we can still agree on how to handle things in one way and disagree on how to handle things another way. The whole point of the issue is whether to ban Islam or not ban Islam and this is what Mr. Spencer wrote in my initial comments that started our discussion:
Robert Spencer wrote: “Your conclusion is false. I oppose banning belief systems because I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state where thought police govern what I may or may not say, what books I may own, etc. This has nothing to do with “protecting Islam as a religion.”
So, here again is my point and to reiterate: Mr. Spencer said that he opposes banning belief systems because he does not want to live in a totalitarian state. I say that by not banning belief systems (ideologies) such as Islam that is spreading worldwide with the intent of global domination and subjecting all nations under Sharia law will give Islam the advantage to establish the Totalitarian State that Mr. Spencer does not want to live under. The majority of the world recognizes Islam as a great “world religion” yet believes that terror attacks are only the result of a few bad actors who really do not represent the religion of Islam. So the result is, Islam will continue to grow stronger and become more emboldened and we have not been able to stop its spread. What should be taken into account is that while no one wants to live in a totalitarian society, there are 1.6 Billion Muslims who are subjected to that system. I really don’t think that most of them like it very much but they have no choice in the matter. Many risk their lives to leave Islam. How can we liberate those people who are forced to live under that tyranny and are literally who are literally held captive by fear if not by Banning Islam? It isn’t like when U.S. and coalition armies liberated nations who were occupied by invading military forces of Germany and the Japanese Imperialist armies. Instead, Islamic indoctrination that commands its followers to hate and kill all “non-believers” is instilled in the minds of Muslims beginning from early age. How can you stop that evil type of indoctrination unless world opinion realizes that it has no place in this world and should be banned in order to stop Islamization of the world and at the same time set the captives to that ideology free? Back to my view of the situation: Because Islam will not be banned, I believe (my opinion) that Islam has been given the advantage to continue on with its 1400+ year tyrannical quest to gain world domination and establish Caliphate rule which is governed by Sharia law. Here is proof that even our own government is allowing Islam to be accepted as a “great religion.” Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the U.S. Government’s assessment of Islam. If you agree, fine; but if you disagree what would you do to change the view of Islam and how should Western Civilization deal with Islam?
The following citations are from the report submitted by the 9/11 Commission.
“Islam is not the enemy. It is not synonymous with terror. Nor does Islam teach terror. America and its friends oppose a perversion of Islam, not the great world faith itself. Lives guided by religious faith, including literal beliefs in holy scriptures, are common to every religion, and represent no threat to us.”
Page 363 of the 911 Commission Report (Sequential Page 381 of PDF document)
https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
“The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam.”
Page 16 of Executive Summary Report (Sequential Page 21 of PDF document)
https://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.pdf
I’d appreciate your comments, gravenimage, and anyone else who wishes to reply, including Mr. Spencer. How do we deal with Islam?
gravenimage says
Mike Ramirez wrote:
Thank you for your thoughts and opinions, gravenimage, no matter how different we view things and take issue with one another. That is the neat thing that we can still agree on how to handle things in one way and disagree on how to handle things another way. The whole point of the issue is whether to ban Islam or not ban Islam and this is what Mr. Spencer wrote in my initial comments that started our discussion:
………………………..
Actually, you yourself mention banning Islam on this thread in your comment at Jul 15, 2021 at 8:26 am.
More:
Robert Spencer wrote: “Your conclusion is false. I oppose banning belief systems because I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state where thought police govern what I may or may not say, what books I may own, etc.
………………………..
Actually, Robert Spencer here was replying to your talking about banning Islam. See here and following:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/07/the-man-who-wasnt-there-muhammad-in-the-full-light-of-history#comment-2358853
You were the first to bring up banning Islam, despite your odd denials..
More:
This has nothing to do with “protecting Islam as a religion.” So, here again is my point and to reiterate: Mr. Spencer said that he opposes banning belief systems because he does not want to live in a totalitarian state. I say that by not banning belief systems (ideologies) such as Islam that is spreading worldwide with the intent of global domination and subjecting all nations under Sharia law will give Islam the advantage to establish the Totalitarian State that Mr. Spencer does not want to live under.
………………………..
I have already pointed out that we did not have to embrace the tactics of Fascism in order to opposed the Nazis–nor do we have to crush freedom in order to maintain it.
The fact is that authoritarian nations such as Russia and the Philippeans are more threatened by Islam than are free western nations. Moreover, opposing this savagery is *far* more difficult if we do not have the freedom to speak out against Islam–I note that you have never addressed this–and likely will not now.
Your claim that the only way to oppose Islam is to ban it–and presumably any mention of it, including critical mention–is simply not borne out.
More:
The majority of the world recognizes Islam as a great “world religion” yet believes that terror attacks are only the result of a few bad actors who really do not represent the religion of Islam. So the result is, Islam will continue to grow stronger and become more emboldened and we have not been able to stop its spread. What should be taken into account is that while no one wants to live in a totalitarian society, there are 1.6 Billion Muslims who are subjected to that system.
………………………..
Because Islam is a totalitarian system–as it is–is no reason for us to embrace totalitarianism ourselves. As I have already noted, we did not embrace fascism to fight the Nazis. I note that you have not addressed this, despite my pointing it out to you more than once.
And no Anti-Jihadists here characterize Islam as a “great world religion”–implying that they do is quite false. It is indeed a religion–by definition–but only the Muslim trolls who show up here from time to time consider it great.
More:
I really don’t think that most of them like it very much but they have no choice in the matter. Many risk their lives to leave Islam. How can we liberate those people who are forced to live under that tyranny and are literally who are literally held captive by fear if not by Banning Islam?
………………………..
Actually, most people who adhere to a creed do indeed embrace that creed.
Then, the idea that it is incumbent upon us to liberate those who adhere to Islam but somehow don’t really mean it is odd. And note that banning Islam would not liberate these supposed non-Muslim Muslims in Dar-al-Islam, in any case.
More:
It isn’t like when U.S. and coalition armies liberated nations who were occupied by invading military forces of Germany and the Japanese Imperialist armies. Instead, Islamic indoctrination that commands its followers to hate and kill all “non-believers” is instilled in the minds of Muslims beginning from early age. How can you stop that evil type of indoctrination unless world opinion realizes that it has no place in this world and should be banned in order to stop Islamization of the world and at the same time set the captives to that ideology free? Back to my view of the situation: Because Islam will not be banned, I believe (my opinion) that Islam has been given the advantage to continue on with its 1400+ year tyrannical quest to gain world domination and establish Caliphate rule which is governed by Sharia law. Here is proof that even our own government is allowing Islam to be accepted as a “great religion.” Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the U.S. Government’s assessment of Islam. If you agree, fine; but if you disagree what would you do to change the view of Islam and how should Western Civilization deal with Islam?
………………………..
This is just dishonest tripe. Anyone who has read my comments over just the past few days just in direct reply to yourself knows that I don’t consider Islam to be benignant. That you have nothing honest to fling at me is just sad.
And if you are pretending that Robert Spencer thinks that Islam is a good thing this is even more bizarre–and even more dishonest.
As I have said before, exposing the ugliness of Islam is a good first step–and a big part of what this site is about. But you seem enraged that anyone might question Islam, and continually demand that Spencer justify his questioning of Islam in his most recent book to you. *Very* odd for someone supposedly opposing Islam.
The fact that so many in the west and the rest of Dar-al-Harb are in denial about the threat of Islam is of course a major part of the problem–as is covered here on a regular basis. Banning the questioning of Islam–and crushing our laws and freedoms to achieve this–will *not* help us.
Mike Ramirez says
It still all boils down to the fact that the West has not found the way to stop the spread of the Islamic ideology. Sure, we can expose the evil teachings and question the authorship of any ideology but the followers who are all indoctrinated in that mindset to collectively gain world domination will still continue with that mission despite all the exposure and critical thinking. I agree that Islam is the greatest threat to Western Civilization. When I have written about Islam being considered a great world religion it has been in general reference to how many government leaders have defined it. I gave examples from the 9/11 commission that make this reference and we can recall how former president G.W. Bush publicly stated that Islam is peace, a few days after the major attack against America on Tuesday, September 11, 200¹ (9/11).
All in the counter jihad effort know that Islam doesn’t mean peace. The problem, however, “counter jihad” is only countering the resulting symptom of the deeper motivating factor; the entire mindset of the Islamic ideology. I have submitted the point that Islam Is The Problem, Apostasy Is The Solution. Only that will stop Islam and allow the captives of that death-cult ideology to be set free. Until that happens, Islam will continue in jihad mode and stealth mode to fulfill the Muslim Brotherhood plan to destroy America from within. Since 9/11 all the effort to expose Islam has failed to make a dent in stopping.the encroachment of that ideology. Our government’s failure to declare Islam as being an Enemy Threat Doctrine to Western Civilization is the reason why it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood plan will succeed here and in other parts of the world. Instead, Western governments are the ones that are aiding and abetting the Islamic plan by telling their citizenry that Islam is a great world religion and that jihadi terrorists do not represent Islam. Also, failure to recognize stealth (deceptive) jihad within Western societies guarantees victory to the Islamic ideology. Stopping Islam requires a public declaration that it is an Enemy Threat Doctrine and then take measures to quench its goal for world domination. Can’t happen though as long as it is recognized by governments and public at large.(Interfaith Dialogues) that it is a great world religion.
gravenimage says
Mike Ramirez is now spamming–he posted this same exact comment elsewhere. I answered him here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/07/what-do-the-earliest-records-tell-us-about-muhammad#comment-2359762