(Published originally at Spencerwatch)
Egypt’s majority Muslim population spoke loudly against extremism and terrorism when they served as “human shields” in protection of their Christian neighbors on Christmas eve. “We either live together, or we die together,” was the slogan of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon. Indeed, it was a teachable moment: a ray of hope in a sectarian torn world. But fake scholar Robert Spencer is determined to squander any chance at peaceful interfaith coexistence.
Spencer notes that Al-Azhar University condemned the recent attacks on Egyptian Churches:
Al-Azhar is the foremost authority in Sunni Islam, and a case can be made from the Qur’an for what they say: “For had it not been for Allah’s repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down.” — Qur’an 22:40
Of course, the citation of Quran 22:40 is black-and-white proof that Islam does not sanction attacks on houses of worship. However, Spencer as usual turns the Quran upside down:
Thus Muslims should not be among those who “pull down” churches, right? So why, then, would any jihadists target a church, given that they consistently proclaim themselves to be the true and pure Muslims, following scrupulously everything commanded in the Qur’an and Sunnah? Or have they really “hijacked” Islam, as is endlessly claimed?
Well, it is worth noting that ’Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), a manual of Islamic law that Al-Azhar certifies as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community,” contains a section (o9.10-o.9.15) entitled “Rules of Warfare” that says nothing about any prohibition on attacking a non-Muslim house of worship. And Islamic law generally takes a negative view of non-Muslim houses of worship, forbidding non-Muslims in Islamic states from building new houses of worship or repairing old ones.
Suggesting the Quran doesn’t mean what it says, Spencer cites as proof his favorite piece of evidence: Umdat al-Salik, a 14th century medieval Muslim law manual. Spencer assumes the certification of the translation into English by Al-Azhar means that Muslim legal thinking hasn’t moved beyond the 14th century. What he fails to disclose is that these manuals are studied in their historical contexts. Serious Egyptian religious intellectuals do not take the rules of warfare from Umdat al-Salik but from the Geneva Conventions and U.N. treaties, as stated clearly by Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Dr. Ali Gomaa:
“Fight in the way of God against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression – for, verily, God does not love aggressors,” (Quran, 2:190)
This verse summarizes everything that has been agreed upon concerning guidelines of warfare, including the first and second Geneva Conventions.
Nonetheless, reading in translation (since we know he is not proficient in Arabic), Spencer doesn’t find any suggestion in Umdat Al-Salik that houses of worship should be protected; therefore, he concludes Islamic law in its totality must not have any precedent about protecting houses of worship. What he failed to mention, even in the very piece of evidence he cited, is this:
09:11 It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection.
[Ibn, al-Naqīb A. L, and Noah H. M. Keller. Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ʻumdat Al-Salik. Beltsville, MD, U.S.A: Amana Publications, 1999. P. 603]
Most Muslims reinterpret such clauses in the modern sense of citizenship. The Christians are Egyptian citizens and therefore deserve the protection of the government. Hence, the overwhelming demonstration by Muslims in support of the Christian community. Of course, even in a time of warfare, Islamic law laid down strict rules of combat. Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, told his armies:
“I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”
[Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.3.10:]
“Inhabited places” include houses of worship. But the Egyptian Christians aren’t combatants; they’re citizens. They’re even more deserving of scrupulous protection. In this regard, Muhammad himself sanctified the lives of those who made peace treaties with Muslims:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr: The Prophet said, “Whoever killed a Mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”
[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 49]
Apparently, Spencer feels no need to check any Islamic sources other than Umdat al-Salik before he makes sweeping claims about Islamic law. In any case, Spencer would like us to think that Al-Qaeda, who bombs houses of worship, is acting in accordance with Islamic law better than the majority of Egyptian Muslims. He gives us his “expert” interpretation:
Also, it is likely that al-Qaeda understands Qur’an 22:40 as referring to churches that teach the true Christianity of Jesus the Muslim prophet as he is depicted in the Qur’an. Those Christians who consider Jesus divine — that is, virtually all of them — are “unbelievers” according to the Qur’an (5:17, 5:72), and the Qur’an commands Muslims to make war against those who associate partners with Allah (9:5), which Christians are explicitly accused of doing by proclaiming Jesus to be the Son of God (9:30). Thus they would likely believe that Qur’an 22:40 just doesn’t have anything to do with “pulling down” the assemblies of renegades such as those who were gathered in the church in Alexandria last night.
Notice that Spencer thinks it is “likely” al-Qaeda understand the verse exactly the way he does, although he can produce no such evidence. Maybe because he’s not too good at translating Arabic documents? He then cites his favorite handful of verses (out of context); for example, citing:
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)… (Quran 9:5)
But without citing the following verses (interpreted in Tafsir Jalalayn as follows):
“How can polytheists [that were treacherous and violated their treaties] have a covenant with Allah and His Messenger? Except for those with whom you entered covenants [i.e., the polytheists who did not break them and hence were not treacherous] in the Sacred Mosque. So as long as they are true to you [with their covenants and do not breach them] then be true to them [by also fulfilling your covenants]; verily, Allah loves those who fear Him [i.e., He loves those who fulfill covenants, since whoever fears Allah will fulfill his covenants, and the Prophet kept his word and upheld his side of the treaty until his enemies broke theirs].”
Spencer takes verses that refer specifically to a handful of Arab tribes who broke their peace treaties with Muhammad and extrapolates them out to apply to all Jews, Christians, and people everywhere. Spencer ignores key verses of the Quran that make clear distinctions between those who war against Muslims and those who make peace:
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong. (Quran 60:8-9)
Finally, Spencer ends by repeating his keynote fallacy:
If Al-Azhar backs up this statement with consistent calls on Egyptian authorities to protect Egypt’s Christians, and consistent teaching against the Islamic texts and teachings that provide justification for attacks against them, we will be making real progress.
Spencer thinks we’ll “make progress” when Al-Azhar teaches against Islamic texts and teachings, while we have shown here that Al-Azhar’s condemnation of Al-Qaeda is not against Islamic texts and teachings, but is perfectly in line with them. Spencer pretends that only his spurious self-serving interpretation of Islam is correct and therefore Islam is the problem, rather than extremism fostered by military occupations. Would Spencer find it sensible for me to likewise demand Christians speak out against the Christian texts and teachings that justify terrorism?
As our country starts debating the violent political rhetoric in our nation’s discourse, let people know that fraudsters like Robert Spencer add fuel to the fire by pushing communities apart, dividing nations along religious lines, and hindering any hope of interfaith understanding. His anti-Muslim bigotry and rejection of Muslim/Christian harmony is poisonous to the best of American traditions: E pluribus unum.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Egypt’s majority Muslim population spoke loudly against extremism and terrorism when they served as “human shields” in protection of their Christian neighbors on Christmas eve.
Where is your evidence that a majority of Egypt’s Muslim population have spoken against extremism and terrorism against Egypt’s Christians?
January 11th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
@Jihad,where is the evidence they did not??? If we want peace, and I do, we look for commonalities, NOT differences.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
The majority of Muslims speak out against extremism and terrorism. But people like you undercut them at every turn, attempting to silence their voice by making claims of taqqiya (a term Islamaphobes don’t even understand) or purporting that you, a prejudiced non Muslim, are more qualified to speak on the issue than Muslims themselves.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
@JihadBob,
Perhaps you should read the article the author linked to:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/95/3365/Egypt/Attack-on-Egypt-Copts/Egypts-Muslims-attend-Christian-Coptic-mass,-servi.aspx
January 11th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Very well said, Greeneye, thanks.
“His anti-Muslim bigotry and rejection of Muslim/Christian harmony is poisonous to the best of American traditions: E pluribus unum.”
Since he clearly thinks Al Azhar isn’t going far enough, has Spencer ever clearly articulated what he would consider to be adequate? Or is that he just looks for reasons (anything) to discredit what The Sheikhs say?
I mean has he ever, even once, articulated that so and so is right. I have not heard or read anything to that effect. Some scholar! Hah, FAKE
and unrelated to the above article, what’s happened to Inconnu? We never hear from him/her anymore.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
@JihadBob,
Here is the evidence the linked in the article:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/95/3365/Egypt/Attack-on-Egypt-Copts/Egypts-Muslims-attend-Christian-Coptic-mass,-servi.aspx
January 11th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Muslim preachers slam attacks on Christians, warn against strife:
http://www.defendtheprophet.com/muslim-preachers-slam-attacks-on-christians-warn-against-strife
January 11th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
serve as “human shields” Is still not good enough for JB…..Much like all Anti-muslim bigots what ever we do will never be good enough
January 11th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
That whole thing by Spencer reeks of him thinking ‘shite, house of cards falling down!’ to me. It is so desperately written! And of course, bob is the mirror image of this attitude, well done bob. I notice how your IP ban magically vanished BTW…
January 11th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
It’s difficult to imagine any sort of intelligent discussion with someone who has filled their own mind with as much hatred as Jihadi Bob. I mean which bit of the complete religious condemnation of terrorism doesn’t he get?
January 11th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Why does anybody pay any attention to spenser? The guys a fat, pompious ass who constantly misinforms and lies about Muslims so his biggoted, redneck, hate-filled hick audience will keep listening to him.
January 11th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
@Sunnishine…You said it perfectly.
January 11th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Egyptian Authorities don’t even protect the rights of Muslims in the country, so don’t expect much for the case of Christians. Anyone getting too religious could get in alotta trouble. preaching real Islam is a threat to Hosni Mubarak and his regime because he knows under Islamic Law – he’d get publically executed for his crimes and treachery.
His abandonment of the people of Gaza during Israel’s 22 day long massacre – says enuff about his regime.
Spencer is a lowlife scumbag. He quotes islamic texts as though to give this image that he is an expert and knows Islamic books too. The man is a fraud and as the prophetic hadith clearly show – it is forbidden to attack places of worship or monks or those that do not fight you.
But since when did facts ever matter to the likes of a lowlife scumbag like Robert Spencer who calls racist psychopaths like Debbie Schussel and Pam Geller as champions of free speech and human rights.
January 11th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
“Where is your evidence that a majority of Egypt’s Muslim population have spoken against extremism and terrorism against Egypt’s Christians?”
Out of my friends circle, 100% of the Muslims from my home country of Egypt who I’ve spoken to about the incident or who have commented on their Facebook pages about it have condemned the attack strongly.
Yes, literally 100%, and I’m speaking of many dozens of people of various backgrounds and ages. I think that says quite a lot about the general sentiment in the country.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Justin, nice one.
I have to say though that it’s shocking how such a big event could be so under-reported.
Wait, no, no… no surprise there.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
As you can see, it’s getting harder for loons like Bob to do damage control for Spencer. If you want proof, then just look at Jingoist Bob’s desperate attempt to twist the meaning of Greeneye’s words.
___________________
Greeneye says:
Egypt’s majority Muslim population spoke loudly against extremism and terrorism when they served as “human shields” in protection of their Christian neighbors on Christmas eve.
JihadBob says:
Where is your evidence that a majority of Egypt’s Muslim population have spoken against extremism and terrorism against Egypt’s Christians?
___________________
Clearly, the two highlighted phrases mean different things and have different connotations, and even if Greeneye claimed that the majority of Egypt’s Muslims were against terrorism and extremism, he would be correct (as other readers have shown). Of course, this is only the latest addition to Bob’s long list of failures. Perhaps Bob should just man up and admit his hero is a liar and a fraud, as Loonwatch and others have shown countless times.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Again, where is the evidence that a majority of Egyptian Muslims reject extremism and terrorism against Christians?
That there wasn’t another successful attack?
Wow.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
@Jihad,where is the evidence they did not??? If we want peace, and I do, we look for commonalities, NOT differences.
You mean, where is the evidence that most Egyptians are in support or do not object to the second class citizenship status that Egyptian Christians are under or that after a suicide bomber detonated his explosives outside a Christian mass, Muslims were quick to find Jews as the culprits.
No extremism here folks.
Let’s pat ourselves on the back on how ‘moderate’ we are.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Again, where is the evidence that a majority of Egyptian Muslims reject extremism and terrorism against Christians?
That there wasn’t another successful attack?
Wow.
Putting more words into people’s moouths and ignoring the responses of posters?
Wow (not).
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/95/3365/Egypt/Attack-on-Egypt-Copts/Egypts-Muslims-attend-Christian-Coptic-mass,-servi.aspx
January 11th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
So your evidence is a blank statement.
’nuff said.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Well, it is worth noting that ’Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), a manual of Islamic law that Al-Azhar certifies as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community,” contains a section (o9.10-o.9.15) entitled “Rules of Warfare” that says nothing about any prohibition on attacking a non-Muslim house of worship.
And I might add, when did Al-Qaeda start following the classical Shafi’i school? There is no evidence to suggest that Al-Qaeda cares at all what is in Umdat al-Salik.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
A Facebook group was created by a Muslim right after the attack called “On the day of the feast [Coptic Christmas, 7th January], we will celebrate with our Christian brethren or die with them” in Arabic. Within one day after the attack, it had gathered over eight thousand members.
What do you think about that, Bob?
January 11th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Why do you expect us to go and poll Egyptian Muslims about this attack. Major Egyptians all condemn the attack, thousands of Muslims attend Christmas masses as “human shields”, I think it’s quite obvious which side Egypt’s Muslims are on when their favourite film stars, politicians and religious leaders and anyone important in Egypt condemn this attack.
You’re just trying to hide the fact you blatantly misread Greeneye’s words, as NassirH pointed out.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
LOL! Good catch Defend the Prophet… I never knew al-Qaeda had decided to follow a madhhab all of a sudden, rather than considering it an innovation and going straight to “the Qur’an and Sunna”, which as quoted above, goes clearly against the sentiment Jihad Bob and Spencer try to convey.
It seems to me like he’s gone “oh know, I need a reference… any reference to support me”, and cherry-picked from a medieval juristic text when he couldn’t find it in the religious sources directly.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
JihadBob posted this…and I cant belive he asked this question TWICE.
“…Again, where is the evidence that a majority of Egyptian Muslims reject extremism and terrorism against Christians?…”
JihadBob…please note that the Muslim community showed thier rejection of terrorism by surrounding the worshipers with thier own bodies while the Coptic people worshiped.
In other words JihadBob…your question is equal to asking someone ‘Where is the evidence that there is gravity?”
If you want, you can prove it to us by jumping off a 10 story building. Then maybe some of us doubters will belive that gravity is real.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Literally thousands of Egyptians on Facebook had this (or a similar) profile picture following the attacks:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/hs078.snc6/168871_10150115345047419_575067418_8333142_7911568_n.jpg
What does that tell you about the dominant sentiment of a country? Come on Bob, no use acting like a scratched record with a reading problem.
Rather odd how Bob has blown a fuse so badly, especially on every Spencer-related thread. Makes you wonder…
January 11th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
(BTW, the caption reads: “I am an Egyptian against terrorism”)
January 11th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Here’s another one for JihadBob to sweep under the rug.
“Egyptian Catholic leader says Muslims expressed sympathy after bombing”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100009.htm
January 11th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Sorry bob, where have Muslims said Jews are responsible? I saw the Egyptians said that it was outside/foreign forces at play trying to destabilize Egypt, and since this can probably be traced back to Al-Queda or an offshoot or similar group then obviously that is a correct statement. And I don’t notice the Egyptians breaking down the doors of Jewish houses looking for culprits, they’ve been arresting Muslims.
January 11th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Good one, Nassir.
January 11th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
So your evidence is a blank statement.
False.
“Only eight percent of those polled in Egypt believed suicide bombing was justified, as did 11 percent in Morocco.”
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38662
There’s also 1) the countless Muslim clerics who have denounced the attack, 2) the fact that thousands of Muslims had risked their lives to protect Coptic Christians after the attack, 3) the Facebook group Sphinx pointed out, 4) other large amounts of anecdotal evidence including that of the Egyptian Catholic leader, 5) Al Azhar’s condemnation of the attack, 6) the findings of Gallup proving that the vast majority of Muslims reject terrorism, etc.
And what do you, Jingoist Bob, have? A chubby bigot whose arguments were shattered in the article you’re commenting under.
January 11th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Nevermind too the fact that many famous Egyptian singers have turned to song to express their solidarity.
As I linked on the previous Coptic thread, and for those who don’t have Arabic, the sign at the top reads “I’m an Arab muslim against terrorism”, which seems to be something floating around the net with numerous sites placing it on their webpages and blog posts.
Some of the songs below translate as:
Tamir Husni “My religion and your religion”
Marwa Nasr “One land”
Samu Zayn “Muslim and Christian, we’re all Egyptian”
That gives an idea of the sentiment. And anyone who knows anything about Arab pop knows that these are no lightweights.
January 11th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Dawood, it’s true, I’ve seen that around a lot now. It’s one of my pet projects actually
January 11th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
The easiest answer that moron, Jihadbob’s question is this.
If the majority of egyptians were extremists and want the Coptic christians gone… There wouldn’t be any Coptic Christians.
I love how that man tries to twist things. Using his logic we can all deem him a child molester unless he post imperiacle proof that he isn’t and even then it must be validated by third part sources.
January 11th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
I agree with that Nasimv, it’s the same as if Islam is inherently violent where are the 1.57 billion terrorists? I think we’d notice if it were don’t you? Whenever I ask this question of someone they can never answer.
January 11th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Typical divisive JahilBob. And here I thought his new year’s resolution was to slim down his bigotry and deception.
January 11th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
If the majority of egyptians were extremists and want the Coptic christians gone… There wouldn’t be any Coptic Christians.
Only in your definition of extremism.
January 11th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
“Only eight percent of those polled in Egypt believed suicide bombing was justified, as did 11 percent in Morocco.”
I can post a poll showing Pakistani Muslims are more moderate than Malaysians and Indonesians.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
JihadBob:
It’s quite obvious that you’ll never accept Muslims as human beings. You’re obsessed with hating them, which is why you hate them even if they risk their lives to defend Christians, and even if they actively fight against and condemn terrorism. Your prejudice has warped your mind permanently. The only thing a Muslim can do to become accepted by you is become Christian.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
First time I read that verse, I wept at how much love and mercy our Creator has for all of us. For us who worship Him, for us who worship others, for us who worship none.
I refuse to let Spencer, the hateful git, ruin that for me.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Also, JihadBob, go away.
You want evidence that majority of Egytian Muslims are against extremist; I want evidence that majority of white Christians don’t want to drop nuclear bombs on my family in Asia. What? You have a poll? I’ve already rejected it. I’ve made up my stubborn mind that white Christians hate my home continent and I will not be swayed by logic or empirical evidence. Now. Give me another evidence so I can reject it too.
January 11th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
bob, you can pull up statistics to prove or disprove anything, as Homer Simpson stated, 75% of people know that. You really are clutching at non existent straws. I think Nassir sums it up pretty well, please leave now, you’re boring.
January 11th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
The Sphinx said,
“Rather odd how Bob has blown a fuse so badly, especially on every Spencer-related thread. Makes you wonder…”
i have never forgotten the time JahilBob’s name linked to Jihadwatch.
Defend the Prophet and Dawood, Spencer is guilty of what i call the Wahhabi Fallacy. Part of the fallacy, strangely enough, is to attribute beliefs to Wahhabis they don’t hold or confuse them with Salafis. The idea is to attribute everything seen as evil amongst Muslims as “Wahhabism”. A true scholar, as Spencer is lauded by his supporters as, would know that Al-Qaeda follows no madhhab. People are now beginning to understand that Al-Qaeda is a modern reactionary religio-political movement best understood as Neo-Khwarijite/Qutubist/extremist Salafi(not all Salafis are extremists).
We should all remember what the Qur’an says about people like JahilBob and Spencer. Never will they be satisfied until you follow their way of life/thinking.Bob is asking for evidence pretending that he will accept this evidence. Don’t be fooled. My memory is not so bad that i can forget when Bob, asked for evidence, only to dismiss it out of hand.to quote JahilBob: “I’ll read what I choose to read and come to my own conclusions.”
Allahu A’lam
January 11th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Heh, go figure that bobbie boy would interject himself on this matter eventually. After all, he can’t allow for this sort of friendship between Muslims and Christians… it’d hurt his book sales. You still haven’t answered MY question, though. What good is robbie boy as a “scholar” if he can’t even SPEAK Arabic? Also, I noticed robbie boy hasn’t showed himself over ont he article about debbie schloosel. She was ranting about how ‘evil’ the Copts were. I’d love to see robbie try defending that.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Notice how Spencer keeps using false arguments already refuted by Loonwatch (in the Dhimmitude article he actually tried to respond to). Just goes to show how arrogant and pompous the lowlife is.
And Islamic law generally takes a negative view of non-Muslim houses of worship, forbidding non-Muslims in Islamic states from building new houses of worship or repairing old ones.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/#refHOUSES
January 11th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Also, has anyone else noticed how he only selectively quotes from a few of the more well-known (and specifically Sunni) manuals of hadith? As in, the same ones that are widely translated into English and available at most public libraries? Tells alot about his so-called ‘scholarship’ doesn’t it? He doesn’t even represent all the Sunni madhhabs, let alone us Shi’a. Five bucks says he’s never even HEARD of al-Kafi, let alone tried reading it!
January 11th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Indeed Zakariya, let alone looking at any of the major hadith collections outside of the Saudi-translated (and “abridged”) ones. I’ve never even seen him quote something as ‘simple’ as Ibn Hajar’s Bulugh al-Maram (a text most students study long before touching the Sahih and other collections, dealing specifically with legally-relevant narrations), not even touching Ibn Hajar’s famed commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari shows how little he has investigated true scholarship on anything remotely related to one of the primary sources of the Sunni tradition that he claims to be a “scholar” of.
And even without going to the Ithna’ ‘Ashari traditions (let alone the Zaydi, Ibadi… etc.), has he ever done anything other than cite the ubiquitous usc.edu collection of hadith? The numbering and chapter system is vastly different from how they’re handled in Arabic sources anyway, and also miss out the gradings and other comments supplied by scholars to help point to each hadiths use and scope. Not to mention the often terrible English rendering. I’ve seen no evidence that he and other wannabe hadith scholars know even the most rudimentary mustalah al-hadith let alone anything else. And that’s even before coming to tafsir, fiqh, usul al-fiqh and all of the other disciplines they claim mastery of in order to tell us what Muslims “really” believe and think.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
JihadBob’s (who is Robert Spencer) weak response fills me with satisfaction.
January 11th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
@Dawood
You are correct. And Spencer didn’t bother to check more recent Ottoman practices such as the Millet System
January 11th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
My reckoning is that Robert Spencer’s main reference is from here:
http://www.islamicbookstore.com/children-school-textbooks-general.html
January 11th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Again, where is the evidence that a majority of Egyptian Muslims reject extremism and terrorism against Christians?
The fact that thousands of Muslims show up to defend a Christmas mass and that virtually every Egyptian Muslim you’ll find condemns extremism and terrorism against the Copts?
What do you have to say otherwise? The policies of an unpopular Egyptian government? That some Egyptians might have enough sense to think that someone besides “Muslim extremists” were behind it? (and so what if they do?) That doesn’t sound very convincing at all. In fact, neither of these things is even related to the issue.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:19 am
JihadBob,
What is your evidence that you DON’T beat women on a regular basis, and that you reject paedophilia or rapists?
Hope you don’t think that’s a stupid question because it’s perfectly in line with your question asking for evidence after evidence of majority of Egyptian Muslims rejecting terrorism, in spite of the ample links and resources posted by other posters.
I understand we can do nothing right in your eye. I know the “innocent until proven guilty” maxim goes out the window when Muslims are in consideration. But it doesn’t help matters when you persistently ask logically nonsensical questions. It just makes your “team” look more retarded than we all know it to be.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:59 am
@ Sourin Mahbub:
> What is your evidence that you DON’T beat women on a regular basis, and
> that you reject paedophilia or rapists?
LOL. Somehow that conjures mental images of robbie beating spamella and/or debbie, which probably isn’t THAT far from the truth… but it still scares me, so I’m going to look for pictures of kittens on the internet.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:22 am
The fact that thousands of Muslims show up to defend a Christmas mass and that virtually every
__________________
How is that a fact? The claim was made on one website.
Anyways, I’ll wait for the evidence that most Egyptian Muslims do not hold ‘extremist’ views against Christians.
It’s quite obvious that you’ll never accept Muslims as human beings. You’re obsessed with hating them
No, I think this is a time for Egyptians to assess the current situation they are in – the discriminatory laws, the intolerance, hate, bigotry – all that contributed to the suicide bombing.
Instead, and unsurprisingly, Egyptians have taken this tragedy and found others to blame. The main culprits obviously are the Jews, but the Americans and AQI (which is being run by Mossad, according to Egyptian MB politicians) are to blame. Anyone but Egyptians.
The Left, for their part, have white washed this incident and skipped the finger wagging and condemnation. One can only wonder the reaction from Loonwatch and others if a Christian suicide bomber detonated himself outside a Mosque in Britain, the Netherlands or the US (and keep in mind in this fantasy world, Muslims are treated as second class citizens just as Christians are in Egypt).
Somehow, I don’t think I’d see any articles which would tread so lightly on criticism, even as major and prominent Christian leaders and politicians were dabbling in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to cover the bomb sized hole in the Muslim narrative that Christian and Muslims live together in harmony and full equality.
So I apologize if I’m not nodding my head in unison with the rest of the moonbats and creepy crawlers. I judge Muslims as I picture how the Left would judge the West if the same incidents happened here.
Capiche?
January 12th, 2011 at 1:25 am
bob, even Fox news covered this happening, as linked before. It happened, now grow up and stop having a moody.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:34 am
“How is that a fact? The claim was made on one website.”
bob, even Fox news covered this happening, as linked before. It happened, now grow up and stop having a moody. As for more evidence, do you have Facebook? Take a look at some of the pages set up by Egyptians for starters. Not that you will of course.
“Instead, and unsurprisingly, Egyptians have taken this tragedy and found others to blame. The main culprits obviously are the Jews, but the Americans and AQI (which is being run by Mossad, according to Egyptian MB politicians) are to blame. Anyone but Egyptians.”
Which of course explains so brilliantly why it’s Muslim Egyptians being arrested here… I’d also *love* to see you back up your claim about Egyptian MB politicians, go for it.
“Somehow, I don’t think I’d see any articles which would tread so lightly on criticism, even as major and prominent Christian leaders and politicians were dabbling in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to cover the bomb sized hole in the Muslim narrative that Christian and Muslims live together in harmony and full equality.”
You know what, I really doubt that would happen, not here anyway and not among the people I know, nor in the mainstream media. I expect that all the condemnations would be noted, along with reference that this person was a nut/loner/outsider/anomaly etc etc and that Christianity doesn’t allow it and you know it. i.e., it would be the opposite as to what would happen if they had been a Muslim because if they were a Muslim then the sky is falling, it’s part of a plot to take over the world by uber-hardened fanatical warriors waiting to jump out of the shadows and eat babies.
“I judge Muslims as I picture how the Left would judge the West if the same incidents happened here.”
Nope, you really don’t, you don’t even attempt fair reasoning or a balanced view. You won’t even accepted and reported the widely reported story about Muslims acting as human shields, as referenced at the start of this post.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:50 am
Sadly, the trouble for the Copts is that the extremists regard them as having violated the terms of the dhimmah. And to my knowledge, all traditional texts are clear: their lives and property (anfus wa-amwal) are thus forfeit.
That is, their lives and property are classified as spoils or booty (ghanimah) taken in battle against a city that had refused to surrender when invited to accept the authority of the Dar al-Islam.
In such a case, it is wholly in the discretion of the imam to decide their fate: death, slavery, hostage, or make them dhimmi. He is to make his decision based on maslahah, or what’s best for the Muslim community. If that is not clear at the moment, they are to be imprisoned.
There is some disagreement as to the fate of captured slaves and as to whether it is permitted to kill women and children after they have been captured. There is also disagreement, but less, on the question of whether one can kill captured people who are blind, senile, or crippled. But overall, this section of the law is enormously stable and consistent in the major schools of Sunni Islam.
This was well noted by the brave young men in Iraq in their attacks on Chaldeans/Assyrians.
It was also the justification used for years in Upper Egypt to collect protection money from Coptic business owners. Back in the day, this was a main source of funding for the Jama`ah. I don’t know if they can still get away with it.
It was also used in more recent years to justify certain unspeakable acts against Chaldeans/Assyrian young ladies. I know some of the doctors and nuns trying to put those poor girls back together. It’s not going to be easy. The damages to body and soul were extensive.
One could argue that none of these minorities broke the dhimmah. Indeed, how could they when they are citizens in nation states that do not even recognize the existence of such a thing. The extremists disagree. If they are right on this point, can one really say that what they did was wrong?
As for the `Umdat vs texts such as Ibn Hajar’s Bulugh or Ibn Qudamah’s Kafi, is there actually much substantive difference between them and the `Umdah? Aside from the provision of proofs and the discussion of ikhtilaf, I’d think it unlikely. (I admit not having read the `Umdat in years.)
Like one of the posters, I agree that it’s easy to get in trouble with Keller’s `Umdah. I’d certainly not advise someone innocent of Arabic to use his translation.
While it’s good enough as far as it goes, readers too quickly forget to distinguish the commentary of Keller’s friends from the text itself.
Even worse, Keller just leaves out from the translation anything he does not consider ‘relevant’ to the ‘modern’ Muslim. The reader limited to English has no way of telling what’s been left out or where.
What’s to stop Keller making a new edition that leaves out taharah (say), should he decide that it too is not relevant for the ‘modern’ Muslim. If you want to change the shari`ah, at least let the reader make that decision.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:08 am
I guess some people have no love nor use for peace, and not even the slightest appreciation for any kind of effort that is made towards that end.
We’ve got to get out of the perpetual cycle of hate, Bob. This kind of events are perhaps only baby-steps to that cause… but these are steps taken nonetheless. It’s just amazing how instead of encouraging this kind of positive behaviour, you only seek to discredit it.
Why is that?
Aren’t you sick of this childish game of tit-for-tat? Let’s strive towards something better. If what you’re saying is true, that most Muslims (in Egypt, in this case) still harbor extremist views on their Christian neighbours – then let’s change the narrative. All your criticizing, finger-pointing, bitching and moaning’s not gonna make the world a better place.
Criticism is good, yes, but only up to a point. After that point, we simply have to do something about it. And I think you’ve past that point a loooooooooooong time ago.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:22 am
“… to cover the bomb sized hole in the Muslim narrative that Christian and Muslims live together in harmony and full equality.”
Trying to be witty, eh? You have no first-hand experience of Egyptian society. Those of us who do know that generally a majority of Christians and Muslims DO live with each other in harmony.
That there happen to be stupid laws about church buildings and repair is a product of corrupt government, and is a) something that Muslims are increasingly calling to be repealed, and b) something that the Prophet himself (pbuh) would have rejected.
“So I apologize if I’m not nodding my head in unison with the rest of the moonbats and creepy crawlers.”
It’s not that you’d have to apologize to. I said it before: It’s for acting like a scratched record with a reading problem. Demanding evidence then rejecting it when presented is an absurdity.
“I judge Muslims as I picture how the Left would judge the West if the same incidents happened here.”
Let me guess, that line occurred to you as a last way out of the hole you dug yourself. Well Bob, if you think The Left™ is so silly, juvenile, misguided and just basically icky, then you’ve just admitted that you yourself are acting silly, juvenile, misguided and just basically, that’s right, icky.
Now that we’ve established that, we can move on…
January 12th, 2011 at 2:49 am
@ little robbie boy:
> How is that a fact? The claim was made on one website.
And reported by several legitimate news organizations, who actually took photos, video and even interviewed people. How do you know it’s not true, hmmm? Do you have anyone on the ground in Egypt who can verify (or disprove) these claims?
> Anyways, I’ll wait for the evidence that most Egyptian Muslims do not
> hold ‘extremist’ views against Christians.
Again, why should we take your word on ANYTHING? You don’t speak Arabic, have never been to Egypt, and have no connections to the Muslim world. Put quite frankly, your opinions on what the ‘majority’ of Muslims believe isn’t worth s***!
> No, I think this is a time for Egyptians to assess the current situation
> they are in – the discriminatory laws, the intolerance, hate, bigotry –
> all that contributed to the suicide bombing.
Just as your own hate speech has fed into anti-Muslim violence, hmmm?
> The Left, for their part, have white washed this incident and skipped
> the finger wagging and condemnation.
What are you talking about? As mentioned on this very site, the so-called ‘liberal’ left is just as anti-Muslim as you right wingers. And this coming from you, a former commie of all things!
> One can only wonder the reaction from Loonwatch and others if a
> Christian suicide bomber detonated himself outside a Mosque in Britain,
> the Netherlands or the US
Well we know your reaction, don’t we. You’d be celebrating out in the streets. You’ve already claimed violence against Muslims is justified, so its only the next logical step.
> (and keep in mind in this fantasy world, Muslims are treated as second
> class citizens just as Christians are in Egypt).
Yes, we Muslims all have secret status here in the US. We just show our ID cards and do the secret hand shake and we get all kinds of free swag. *rolls eyes*
> So I apologize if I’m not nodding my head in unison with the rest of the
> moonbats and creepy crawlers. I judge Muslims as I picture how the Left
> would judge the West if the same incidents happened here.
What? That doesn’t even make sense. But regardless, your attempts to hide your hatred are laughably pathetic. Just like I said in the other post, you hate us because we have our own culture. Just having dark skin and speaking Arabic is enough to make Coptic Christians ‘the enemy’ in the eyes of debbie schlooslel. I can only imagine what tubby robbie boy thinks of us…
> Capiche?
Ekmek var mı?
January 12th, 2011 at 2:56 am
Also, robbie actually made a reference to al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun as if they were a legitimate political force in Misr? They’ve been BANNED in the country for over half century, and the group’s own members don’t even agree on what they believe! But apparently robbie there is reading their blogs or something, which tells us a good deal about what he believes…
January 12th, 2011 at 3:14 am
and JihadBob, in response to your enquiry:
“How is that a fact? The claim was made on one website.Anyways, I’ll wait for the evidence that most Egyptian Muslims do not hold ‘extremist’ views against Christians.”
Al Jazeera is nearly as mainstream as the BBC.
some extracts below that rebut your riduculous claims. As soon as calls for human shields were made, many responded positively, also if it is per the norm (bigotry against Copts) why did it need a trigger from Al Qaeda, and activists believe it is the apathy of the government that makes it worse, as others above noted.
——————–
Copts celebrate amid tight security
Solidarity amid tensions
english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/20111704759563917.html
Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been threatening Christians in Iraq and Egypt. In response to threats against the Copts, Egyptian activists called on Muslims to form human shields in front of churches on Christmas Eve.
and
Coexistence
Egypt’s Muslims and Christians have co-existed for centuries, with occasional clashes often the result of family or business disputes or cross-faith relationships, rather than ideology.
and
Human rights groups say Egyptian police have been too slow to punish violence motivated by religion, sending a message that it is unacceptable.
————–
and JihadBob, remember Al Jazeera online is available on the web to American viewers too, in fact it’s very popular online because it couldn’t get a licence to broadcast from your so called “freedom of speech”
supporting country.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:48 am
Were no angels & yea, we have our own special flavour of lunatics, not school shooters or being of the American postal-office massacre variety- but ours are way more predictable, and reversible since they have objectives which can be talked down.
Insanity on the other hand has a special magic more than blase cause-based terrorism.
Lunacy is not Muslim moon watchers but lunatics like Spencer bobbing around like a four year old in two year old’s jumpsuit, poking his theologically dipped winky perversely at the unassuming public, pissing as a devil in many ears.
Spencer is forever stunted, unable to ever ejaculate his false fantasies to tangible reality & will always remain frustrated- hence playing bully in his playpen and thinking he poops ice cream since the likes of intellectual pigs like Geller will eat it.
Whoever let this chubby backpack book-boy off the short bus to join society forgot his leash.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:01 am
I’m not denying that there were Muslims who acted as human shields on Christmas, I’m asking for a reliable news source to back up the claim that there were thousands of human shields at Coptic churches across Egypt.
It’s one of those claims where dozens can turn to hundreds or hundreds into thousands. Nothing specific about the situation at hand but that’s the nature of media to exaggerate certain claims.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:04 am
why did it need a trigger from Al Qaeda, and activists believe it is the apathy of the government that makes it worse, as others above noted.
Yes, I do think there is a level of bigotry against Christians living in Egypt held by a large percentage of Muslims.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about al-Qaeda – especially since no one is sure who actually carried this attack out – but my last comment was clear in saying that religious intolerance and discriminatory laws were a factor in the bombing.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:08 am
Trying to be witty, eh? You have no first-hand experience of Egyptian society. Those of us who do know that generally a majority of Christians and Muslims DO live with each other in harmony.
And yet I was able to correctly predict that a suicide bombing against an Egyptian church was only a matter of time.
I said two months ago that a suicide bomber would strike an Egyptian church – and I was right.
I think I’ll stick to my own gut feeling of the political and religious atmosphere in Muslim countries rather than listen to the members here who were predicting a genocide of Muslims in the West.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:34 am
JihadBob
“It’s one of those claims where dozens can turn to hundreds or hundreds into thousands. Nothing specific about the situation at hand but that’s the nature of media to exaggerate certain claims.”
Well it was probably remiss of the reporter, to not line up the human shields for a head count, truly she deserves a reprimand (sarcasm)
Are you saying that if she had counted, and reported thousands, you would not then come back and complain “only thousands”
Or, if she had counted 100,000+ you would not then come back and whinge “only hundreds of thousands?”
Or if she had counted millions, you would then come back and cry “Oh, not good enough, Egypts’s population is 85,000 000+ so 1 million means the majority did not become human shields…..
What number would you have liked to have seen?
January 12th, 2011 at 4:37 am
Ekmek var mı?
Lol!
January 12th, 2011 at 4:46 am
And yet I was able to correctly predict that a suicide bombing against an Egyptian church was only a matter of time.
I said two months ago that a suicide bomber would strike an Egyptian church – and I was right.
Oh come on Bob, there’s probably only a handful of people who didn’t think something like this was imminent; the threats from terrorists have been doing the rounds and have been reported in the media for a while.
Are you trying to imply that this is another instance of you being able to tap into the “Muslim psyche” – both from 1,400 years ago right up until the New Year?
January 12th, 2011 at 6:08 am
has anyone noticed that Jihadi Bob comes on here and never addresses the actual points. he only says something which can;t be proven.
So for example.. can you prove to me that Robert Spencer doesn’t want to have sex with goats. I haven;t seen any evidence of this. It doesn’t matter if he has a beard and denies the fact, until I see the evidence I will continue to believe RObert Spencer has some sort of goat sex fetish?
January 12th, 2011 at 7:23 am
An interesting article I found on the net about Prophet Muhammad’s Promise to Christians http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/?id=36388
A lot of Muslims are not aware of it either.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:51 am
Jihad Bob said:
“Muslims were quick to find Jews as the culprits.”
Correction, not “Jews” but Israelis and more specifically Mossad. Strip off the 7 million US dollars a day from this bully and see how it behaves all over the world.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:58 am
@JihadBob
Don’t you think that Egyptian Muslims standing in solidarity with Christians and using their own bodies to protect them is a positive development? What more must Muslims do other than not be Muslims for you to tolerate them?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:07 am
“And yet I was able to correctly predict that a suicide bombing against an Egyptian church was only a matter of time.
I said two months ago that a suicide bomber would strike an Egyptian church – and I was right.”
I predict that some time in the near future, a attempted bomb or arson attack on an American mosque will take place. It has happened before and will probably happen again. I hope I’m wrong.
Sorry to cut your 5 minutes of gloating short, but yours was an easy guess to make, just as mine is as well. The odds of my prediction being right are (unfortunately) rather high, seeing how poisonous the political atmosphere is right now.
And besides, what would that prove? That there are certain individuals in the US that want to inflict harm on Muslims and their property. Never mind all the media scapegoating, the career-islamophobes whipping up hatred against Islam for profit, the racial profiling of Middle-Eastern looking people, and all that.
Would such an attack prove that most Americans are bigoted against Muslims? JihadBob logic says yes, of course it does. Sound logic on the other hand says that it’s only some bloggers, pundits and politicians who’re spitting anti-Islamic venom into the public discourse, and a few lunatic vigilantes who decide to take things into their own hands.
That’s all it takes to (God forbid) shed Muslim blood on American soil. It says nothing on America as a whole.
But don’t mind me and my pesky sophistication, kindly answer Justin’s question, will you?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Oh I see so bob only relies on his “gut feelings” not facts.
Should we rely on Yusuf’s gut feelings then? LOL
January 12th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Looks like a possible terrorist attack – a shooting on a train.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Don’t you think that Egyptian Muslims standing in solidarity with Christians and using their own bodies to protect them is a positive development? What more must Muslims do other than not be Muslims for you to tolerate them?
Yes, but I don’t see the mainstream approach to this incident by denying it and blame it on Mossad as being positive.
Why should I sweep such sentiments under the rug?
Would Americans be let off the hook if they did this?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Are you trying to imply that this is another instance of you being able to tap into the “Muslim psyche” – both from 1,400 years ago right up until the New Year?
I agree that it was painfully obvious this sort of thing would happen, but that’s the point – the reports of Copts stashing Israeli weapons and kidnapping Muslim women was all that was needed.
No one on this forum seemed ready for the idea that a major bombing/suicide attack against an Egyptian Church was just on the horizon.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:55 am
How is that a fact? The claim was made on one website.
Yes, a news website reporting the incident with no other news reports saying otherwise.
If you want to make the claim that it was less, then you need to prove it.
Anyways, I’ll wait for the evidence that most Egyptian Muslims do not hold ‘extremist’ views against Christians.
Actually, it is you who needs to prove that they do hold such views, if you’re going to make that claim. The burden of proof is always on the person making the charge.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:59 am
hi
@jihadbob
i don’t comment on loonwatch but I need to point out something no one else is noticing. Whenever you guys rebuke bob (or whatever you want to call it) he starts spamming. Probably to make himself feel better and “drown” out your answers to him. and his spam is not even very good, it just takes up space
In other words, jihadbob has a big ego.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Yes, but I don’t see the mainstream approach to this incident by denying it and blame it on Mossad as being positive.
Who cares if they blame the Mossad for it? Without any proof, positive identification, or claims of responsibility, there’s no more of a reason to suspect Muslim extremists, than there is to suspect Mossad agents. Both would have the means, the motive and opportunity, and neither would be unprecedented in Egypt.
What’s important is that, regardless of who they suspect, most Egyptian Muslims are distancing themselves from the attack.
Why should I sweep such sentiments under the rug?
Who people suspect as being the perpetrator is irrelevant to whether they hold “extremist views” or not.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Who people suspect as being the perpetrator is irrelevant to whether they hold “extremist views” or not.
Of course it matters.
It matters in every conceivable manner possible.
From correcting extremists views in the country to adding another layer of paranoia and conspiracy theories for Egyptians to peddle amongst themselves.
As David Cook has pointed out, Muslim societies that are open to conspiracy theories (Pakistan, Arab world) are more prone terrorism and militancy than the ones that aren’t (Turkey).
January 12th, 2011 at 10:20 am
There were over 50,000 Muslims propesting in favour of blasphemy laws of Pakistan.That indicates the tolerance of Muslims for the Christians.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Adam, great link you found there. I read some more about the Prophet Muhmmad(PBUH)’s letter to St.Catherine and that the monastery was granted security, religious freedoms of Christians was discussed and they were exempted from taxes and military service, proving that the Jizya was not always applied even by the Prophet and that abrogating the rules, as the Ottoman Caliph had done, was possible. Here is some interesting info that Muslims should definitely know. This document is a call for peace between Christians and Muslim, something that is desperately needed at this time.
“No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. ”
“No one is to destroy a house of their religion”. Hmmm, this letter from the Holy Prophet backs up the Quran and the fatwas of most Islamoc scholars. Quick Spencer! Grab some obscure medieval text to refute this.
I wish more Muslims knew about this. The document is still preserved at the monastery.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:33 am
@Justin: After the Murder of Egyptian Christian,No amount of so called solidarity can help and bring those dead people back to life.That is why this is one of the commandment from GOD:THOU SHALL NOT KILL;Allah on the contrary has a different price for the life of different people.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:34 am
“There were over 50,000 Muslims propesting in favour of blasphemy laws of Pakistan.That indicates the tolerance of Muslims for the Christians.”
HalalPork, Why do you pretend that all Muslims have the same opinion. You blatantly ignored the thousands of Pakistanis that have spoken out against it, the thousands that condemned the killing of Salman Taseer and the thousands that attended his funeral and of course the thousands that went on a riot following news of his assassination. Numerous influential bloggers and journalists openly condemned the religious fanatics that supported the attack.
By the way, if we are to pull out random statistics to incriminate the whole population, then let’s look at this. Explain why 40,000 people were able to join a facebook group in support of killer Raoul Moat before it was taken down? One of the commenters wrote that Moat was “one of the few remaining reasons that Britain is still great”. If I was like you then I would add something like “this proves British people are violent murderers who hate the police”. For JihadBob, why were MPs calling for it to be taken down? Freedom and speech and whatnot.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:34 am
“Allah on the contrary has a different price for the life of different people.”
You’re thinking of Saudi Arabia.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:39 am
@ John C. Lamoreaux,
Your comment has been approved.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:58 am
John C. Lamoreaux, why rely on an old fiqh book to build some of your argument? But even then, that’s not the major point. Why spend time showing why the extremist might be right? Why not spend more time doing the vice-versa?
January 12th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Of course it matters.
It matters in every conceivable manner possible.
From correcting extremists views in the country to adding another layer of paranoia and conspiracy theories for Egyptians to peddle amongst themselves.
As David Cook has pointed out, Muslim societies that are open to conspiracy theories (Pakistan, Arab world) are more prone terrorism and militancy than the ones that aren’t (Turkey).
It’s a “paranoid” “conspiracy theory”, no matter who you suspect for it, so it doesn’t matter.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:15 am
There were over 50,000 Muslims propesting in favour of blasphemy laws of Pakistan.That indicates the tolerance of Muslims for the Christians.
No, it just means that there were 50,000 Muslims protesting in favor of blasphemy laws in Pakistan. It has nothing to do with “tolerance of Muslims or the Christians”.
After the Murder of Egyptian Christian,No amount of so called solidarity can help and bring those dead people back to life.That is why this is one of the commandment from GOD:THOU SHALL NOT KILL;Allah on the contrary has a different price for the life of different people.
Just because a Muslim does something, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s because of Islam, or because they’re commanded to by God/Allah.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Good post John C. Lamoreaux
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/spencer-distorts-egyptian-society-spreads-interfaith-bigotry/#comment-49589
January 12th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Yet there are many countries that are Muslim dominated that have no interfaith battles.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
“In such a case, it is wholly in the discretion of the imam to decide their fate: death, slavery, hostage, or make them dhimmi. He is to make his decision based on maslahah, or what’s best for the Muslim community. If that is not clear at the moment, they are to be imprisoned.”
Interesting how you left out “treat Copts as brothers and condemn this cowardly attack” because that’s exactly what the Grand Mufti of Egypt did.
““This is not just an attack on Copts, this is an attack on me and you and all Egyptians, on Egypt and its history and its symbols, by terrorists who know no God, no patriotism, and no humanity,” said Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt.”
So John C Lamoreaux is more knowledgeable about the treatment of Dhimmis in Islam than the Grand Mufti of Egypt. Loon fail.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
John did say something good, something that Jihadbob probably missed before he blindly endorsed his post.
“One could argue that none of these minorities broke the dhimmah. Indeed, how could they when they are citizens in nation states that do not even recognize the existence of such a thing. The extremists disagree. If they are right on this point, can one really say that what they did was wrong?”
It’s extremists. They commit acts that go against Islam. If they were in accordance with Islam, they would have the support of the world’s Muslims and the world’s scholars of Islam. JihadBob disagrees that it’s extremists, he believes all Muslims must do this if they want to be good Muslims.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Oh no jihad its not my defin
January 12th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Oh no jihad its not my definItion of extremesim. By your definition and your own arguments the extremesim of “Islam” is genocidal. Your argue that Muslims mistreat and support terrorism on them. So stop lying and trying to hide the filth you spew. If Islam supported killing every Copt and every Christian no one would be denying it. Hell the Muslims would be putting you to the torch.
You see you need to stop applying your Christian politics. Your Christian extremists love to talk about how vile they’re opponents are while preaching death to their enemies.
You have already in numerous threads admitted you were all for the ethnic cleansing of Europe of “mooslims”. Now stop looking at child porn and get off our site you pedophile.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
@HalalPork
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “A faithful believer remains at liberty regarding his religion unless he kills somebody unlawfully.”
[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 2]
January 12th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
@JihadBob
Prophet Muhammad’s Promise to Christians
January 12th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Nasimv, I would recommend you did not use language like that because Islamophobes will pick up on it and use it against you in the future. It is best that we all follow the Quran’s commandment.
“Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” Al Nahl 16:125
January 12th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
As for the `Umdat vs texts such as Ibn Hajar’s Bulugh or Ibn Qudamah’s Kafi, is there actually much substantive difference between them and the `Umdah? Aside from the provision of proofs and the discussion of ikhtilaf, I’d think it unlikely. (I admit not having read the `Umdat in years.)
Like one of the posters, I agree that it’s easy to get in trouble with Keller’s `Umdah. I’d certainly not advise someone innocent of Arabic to use his translation.
Agreed. My point was that taking one medieval text as representative of all schools of thought – even for back then – is not academically sound, especially when it’s an intermediate-level text from within the Shafi’i school that does not give detailed evidence nor show methodology or disagreement. There are other, more representative texts that could be chosen, but unfortunately are not available in English fully. Even so, Ibn Rushd’s Bidayat al-Mujtahid or Ibn Qudama’s Mughni makes mistakes regarding other school’s doctrine, which are well known to those in the field. This all speaks to Spencers “scholarly” credentials, which do not stand up to scrutiny if he has to rely on such a text to make a point. The ‘Umdat al-Salik, is, in fact, something I’ve seen cited very little in academia whatsoever.
Likewise, using a 14th century text as representative of Islamic thought today, or even from the last century or more, is a great misservice to the juristic tradition, and simply inaccurate. There are much more representative sources which could have been consulted. We have discussed this very issue with JihadBob many times, posting many academic articles and other sources, such as Sherman Jackson’s Jihad and the Modern World which discusses the unprecedented change in both political circumstances and corresponding juristic thought in the last century and a half. This is a change JihadBob (and his ilk), plus Muslim extremists themselves deny exists, and deny as authoritative. Other texts, such as Mohammad Fadel’s ‘No Salvation Outside Islam’: Muslim Modernists, Democratic Politics, and Islamic Theological Exclusivism supports Jackson’s thesis, though focuses more on theology and its relationship to politics.
In such a case, it is wholly in the discretion of the imam to decide their fate: death, slavery, hostage, or make them dhimmi. He is to make his decision based on maslahah
Masalaha is not a simple doctrine. Especially so when there is no Imam in the first place and the Muslim world is now a collection of modern nation states and various types of government! And each government has clearly stated the inclusion of non-Muslim citizens within society.
But overall, this section of the law is enormously stable and consistent in the major schools of Sunni Islam.
No one denied that this part of the law existed in classical and medieval Sunni thought. But using these positions as representative of juristic thought today is simply inaccurate and problematic. Who – besides extremists and terrorists – takes such positions today? I cannot think of one mainstream scholar. When we look at the Amman Message and other collective scholarly opinions, we see that they have repeatedly called for the establishment, application and protection of rights as expressed by the UN, for example. Countries with non-Muslim citizens (such as Lebanon, Jordan etc.) take pride in their diversity. The recent speech of Prince Hasan of Jordan, is but one example. The adoration felt for the Jordanian Royal family (whether we personally agree or not), is something also expressed by Jordan’s Christians, judging by the names and comments below the article. and personal experience.
And you are forgetting one thing: the Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere are not “captured slaves”! (I can’t believe this point even needs to be made!) Regardless of socio-political ups and downs they have faced, they are an integral part of society in each nation. So I don’t understand your need to post such positions in the first place?
January 12th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
This John C. Lameroux, may be an Orientalist who goes by the same name and teaches at SMU, Southern Methodist University: http://www.johnlamoreaux.org/
January 12th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Loonwatchers, if he is not a poser and I hope he is then his credibility has severely been damaged, I see that he is a commenter on JW:
John C. Lamoreaux | January 9, 2011 10:58 PM | Reply
Interesting posts!
It’s been my experience that Christian minorities in the M.E. have extremely mixed views on Israel and Jews, varying with country, education, sect, and age. In Europe and North America, in immigrant communities, while there’s still a spectrum of views, they are markedly more positive. I’ve found that Christian Arabs in the U.S. of an evangelical inclination often tend to be all but Zionists, much to the benefit of their non-evangelical friends and family.
I think it important to remember that M.E. Christians still get most of their news through government-sanctioned media, which is (almost?) entirely sickeningly anti-semitic. And then there’s the state approved curricula, which are not terribly different: Jews are responsible for the Mongol sack of Baghdad, Jews invented the toothache, Jews put the labia of Muslim girls in their matzah ball soup, et gorram cetera.
I’ll not soon forget watching a Syrian friend, a former tanker and a member of the Syrian Orthodox church, as he met his first Jew after moving to Chicago. The exchange was all very polite. But from the look on his face, you could tell he was terrified, as if he kept expecting to see a proboscis of Alien proportions. A few years later, his closest friends are two Israeli expat and a Lubavicher.
On the other hand, a Lebanese Greek Orthodox guy I know still thinks Jews have tails. (Then again, he live in France, so the media is only slightly less anti-semitic than at home.)
On the third hand, I know an Egyptian bishop who talks quite differently about Israel when in public and when in private. The last thing he or his small community needs is to be accused of treason in addition to the more frequent accusations of hiding weapons or kidnapping converts, or worse, being uppity.
In general, though, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered in a Christian community anything like the standard pablum of the Muslim illuminati, who see the hand of a Jew behind everything good that happens to a non-Muslim and everything bad that happens to a Muslim.
It’s curious how such hatred ends up attributing to the Jews the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. I wonder if continuing dismal failure on the battlefield and in development requires the creation of ever more powerful (and imaginary) enemies.
In 1967 it was Nasser and the big lie: we lost because the U.S. bombed us our planes on the ground. (Bad idea. Rule I: Never lie to a U.S. president. Rule II: Never lie about a Texan president.)
In 1973 it was that we won and regained our sacred honor, but alas lost, though only because the U.S. carpet-bombed us and Sharon is really a devil.
Now it’s necessary to posit a two whole nations of devils, one infinitely powerful and one infinitely pliable, one to pull the strings and the other to dance and kill Muslims.
This illness of the mind ought to have been included in the DSM-IV.
Anyhow, point is, attitudes vary immensely. And while we all bear ultimate responsibility for our moral sensibilities, I can’t help but think, too, that being assaulted daily with anti-semitic propaganda should somehow mitigate censure.
> jcl
January 12th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Or see this quite disgusting quote. John C. who is supposed to be a distinguished professor is getting low-down, admires Schlussel, and says present day Egypt is akin to Nazi Germany:
John C. Lamoreaux | January 10, 2011 8:12 AM | Reply
For Egypt today, think Germany in early 1933. Would you wish to blame the Jews in Germany at that time for not speaking their minds?
Try to imagine what it must be like to try to shepherd a church in an environment like Egypt. Pope Shenouda can be disappeared, imprisoned, or worse, at any time. More likely, an NGO “proxy” would be used. Nor would the righteous indignation of the believers spare the mostly poor and mostly powerless members of his church.
A few Coptic clerics have been more outspoken. We know what happens.
Father Zakaria Boutros now has the honor of a 60 million dollar bounty on his head. And for what? He did what New Testament scholars do every day in a college classroom in the U.S.
Don’t even think about what happens if you preach the Gospel.
“Botros: I am a Copt. In my early 20s, I became a priest. Of course, in predominantly Muslim Egypt, Christians—priests or otherwise—do not talk about religion with Muslims. My older brother, a passionate Christian learned that lesson too late: after preaching to Muslims, he was eventually ambushed by Muslims who cut out his tongue and murdered him. Far from being deterred or hating Muslims, I eventually felt more compelled to share the Good News with them. Naturally, this created many problems: I was constantly harassed, threatened, and eventually imprisoned and tortured for one year, simply for preaching to Muslims. Egyptian officials charged me with abetting “apostasy,” that is, for being responsible for the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. Another time I was arrested while boarding a plane out of Egypt. Eventually, however, I managed to flee my native country and resided for a time in Australia and England. Anyway, my life-story with Christianity and Islam is very long and complicated. In fact, an entire book about it was recently published.”
Fr. Botros can now speak what he thinks.
On the question of Israel, other Copts are also speaking what they think.
National American Coptic Assembly, for instance.
\begin{quote}
The National American Coptic Assembly recognizes that it is in the best interest of the Coptic people to develop and declare a position regarding the Middle East Arab- Israeli conflict. Our outline of our position is as follows:
We recognize the sacred right of the state of Israel and the Israeli people to the land of historic Israel.
“The right of Return” of the Jewish people to the land of their foremothers and forefathers is a sacred right. It has no statute of limitation. The return must continue to enrich the Middle East.
We recognize Jerusalem as simply a Jewish city, It must never be divided, She is, and shall always be, the united capital of Israel .
The future of the Palestinians lies with the Arab states. A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria constitute an imminent danger to world peace.
We believe that the Wahabi/Moslem brotherhood religious ideology and its power structures are threats not only to Israel and other non-Arab, non-Moslem peoples in the Middle East, but also to world peace.
It is our opinion that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be assigned the historic and critical mission of defeating this Islamic ideology and its power structures.
We believe that the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the achievement of genuine peace in the Middle East can only be visible with the emergence of tolerant Islamic faith. The toxic combination of Islamic supremacy and extremism and Arab racism is the real enemy to peace in the Middle East. It must be defeated.
In any current or future peace treaty among all parties involved in the Middle East conflict, the following must be part of such treaty :
All parties to this treaty recognize Mecca and Medina to be the holiest cities in Islam, whereas Christian and Jewish parties to this treaty give up and surrender in full any and all legal and historical rights to these cities. All parties to this treaty recognize a united Jerusalem to be the holiest city in Judaism, whereas all Arab and all Moslem parties to this treaty will relinquish and surrender in full any and all legal and historical rights in Jerusalem and as such accept it as the united capital of the Jewish state.
National American Coptic Assembly
Office of the President
\end{quote}
I respect Debbie Schlussel enormously. She’s a fantastic writer, sharp as they come, and has an uncanny ability to discern where the real dirt of a story is to be found. On this question, I can only hope that a fuller understanding of the situation would change her mind.
> jcl
January 12th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
@Mosizzle: { It’s extremists. They commit acts that go against Islam. If they were in accordance with Islam, they would have the support of the world’s Muslims and the world’s scholars of Islam.” }
Here’s the problem for the poor non-Muslim. Some Muslims say this is true Islam (bad! extremists!). Some say that it is not even Islamic (good! nice guys!). So too, a basic knowledge of history supports both views (bummer!). One might be equally confused by a quick look at current events (oh!).
So tell me, why should I believe Zawahiri rather than Abdullah Azzam? Or why Azzam rather than the mufti of al-Azhar. Or maybe Zuhdi Jasser and Qanta Ahmed are right. Who knows: Many the Shi’ites and the Shi’ites alone are true Muslims.
This much I can say: I’ll not believe anyone until I’m convinced they are capable of studying Islam in an historically honest manner.
Point:–I find it hard to believe that the mufti of al-Azhar would disagree with the above description of the medieval Muslim understanding of the dhimmah. Good heavens, my friend, he teaches these books for a living and he’s always struck me as a pretty careful reader of texts. I suspect rather that the mufti would have the good sense to say that Muslims don’t have to do that sort of thing any more.
If he’s not willing to say that, I don’t think I’d much care to be his neighbor.
In the same way, I wouldn’t want the jihad-ninjas collecting back jizyah in my part of the world, even as the Copts in Upper Egypt have not much enjoyed this practice.
What’s your madhhab? Do you read Arabic? I’ll get you some reading material.
Pax,
> jcl
January 12th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I found this to be ultra offensive. If this guy isn’t John C. Lamoreaux than someone needs to inform the real guy because he is tarnishing his image:
John C. Lamoreaux | January 10, 2011 9:59 AM | Reply
Dear former brother al-Kidya,
I just spoke to the Egyptian supreme court. In accordance with the requirements of shariah, we have decided to annul your marriage. I get first dibs on your ex.
Allahu Asghar!
Yahya
> jcl
January 12th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
I got all of these from this link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YxfinRZ4i9sJ:www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/cutting-their-own-throat-copts-rally-in-italy-turns-against-israel-supporters.html+http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/cutting-their-own-throat-copts-rally-in-italy-turns-against-israel-supporters.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
January 12th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
@Averroe’s Ghost: re “disgusting quote”
What’s disgusting?
The fact that the brother of Fr. Butros had his tongue cut out? or that fact that I mentioned it?
My friend, if you want to understand how Copts feel these days, you’ve got to recognize that these things happen. It’s not my fault that many feel like Egypt today is like Germany on the eve of Kristallnacht.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Again: “I just spoke to the Egyptian supreme court. In accordance with the requirements of shariah, we have decided to annul your marriage. I get first dibs on your ex.”
What are you offended by? The fact that the Egyptian court did this? or the fact that its being mentioned?
Surely, you don’t think it was just for them to divorce Abu Zayd and his wife, against their will. And why? What did he do? He wrote a book that some of his fellow teachers found a bit on the liberal side.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“I respect Debbie Schlussel enormously. She’s a fantastic writer, sharp as they come, and has an uncanny ability to discern where the real dirt of a story is to be found. On this question, I can only hope that a fuller understanding of the situation would change her mind.”
Here’s what “fantastic writer” Debbie Schlussel had to say about the attack against the Copts:
“And, sorry, but, as I’ve noted before, you’ll get no tears from me over the Copts. ”
“The bombing of the Copts, as well as many attacks on Copts in Egypt by Muslims over the years, are a great example of how Muslims cannot live in peace with Christians. But they are also a great example of karma. It’s a bitch, and over the weekend, the bitch was Muslim. And what goes around definitely comes around in the case of the Copts. In the case of the Copts versus the Muslims, I view it as I did the Iran-Iraq war and the larger feud between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims. I wish it could go on forever and that both sides would lose.”
The moron believes that because a few Copts are anti-semitic and that they, like most Egyptians, oppose Israel’s aggression, then they deserved this because of “karma”. Read the rest of her rant.
How can John support such a loon who doesn’t care about how offensive her comments will be to Coptic Christians.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GObHuCHT-NQJ:www.debbieschlussel.com/31285/no-tears-for-egypts-coptic-christians/+debbie+schlussel+copts+deserve+it&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
January 12th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
@Averroe’s Ghost: re “This John C. Lameroux, may be an Orientalist who goes by the same name and teaches at SMU, Southern Methodist University: http://www.johnlamoreaux.org/”
Of course it’s me. But it’s spelled ‘Lamoreaux.’
I would never post anonymously on important matters.
It leads to bad manners.
Cheers,
John
January 12th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
@Mosizzle re D.S.
Read the quote and the thread.
I say: “I can only hope that a fuller understanding of the situation would change her mind.”
She’s absolutely wrong on this point. You and I seem to agree.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Point:–I find it hard to believe that the mufti of al-Azhar would disagree with the above description of the medieval Muslim understanding of the dhimmah. Good heavens, my friend, he teaches these books for a living and he’s always struck me as a pretty careful reader of texts. I suspect rather that the mufti would have the good sense to say that Muslims don’t have to do that sort of thing any more.
Indeed! But who is it here that’s arguing that Muslims must follow the doctrines espoused in pre-modern texts to the letter, forgetting that تغير الأحكام بتغير الزمان? It is JihadBob and others who are arguing this position on Loonwatch, not any of the Muslim posters here. You yourself even did the same, above. Noting that something happened in history is very different to stating that it is what is a) happening now, or b) should be happening now.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
“Here’s the problem for the poor non-Muslim. Some Muslims say this is true Islam (bad! extremists!). Some say that it is not even Islamic (good! nice guys!). So too, a basic knowledge of history supports both views (bummer!). One might be equally confused by a quick look at current events (oh!).
So tell me, why should I believe Zawahiri rather than Abdullah Azzam? Or why Azzam rather than the mufti of al-Azhar. Or maybe Zuhdi Jasser and Qanta Ahmed are right. Who knows: Many the Shi’ites and the Shi’ites alone are true Muslims.”
I could say exactly the same about the various Christian denominations. Who’s right? The Lord’s Resistance Army or the Quakers? Why should I believe the Pope instead of Fred Phelps (who recently applauded the attack on Gabrille Giffords)? Obviously, you would trust the person with more authority. Why would you trust Zawahiri who is trained as a surgeon over the Grand Mufti of Egypt or the many scholars of Al-Azhar University which is the most important centre of Sunni Islamic learning and who have spent their lives learning Islam. It really is obvious. No need to even think about it. The person with most knowledge and authority on Islam. Perhaps the closest thing to the Muslim Pope. If Jizya is still supposed to be an important part of Islam, then why have is not collected throughout the Muslim world today.
Perhaps because the Khalifa of Islam himself abolished the Jizya 150 years ago:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/do-muslims-want-to-reimpose-dhimmitude-or-live-as-equals/
You will not hear any of this at JihadWatch because it would destroy Spencer’s argument and then how will he ever sell his books?
By the way, in response to your question, I am a Hanafi and do not understand Arabic.
“I’ll get you some reading material.”
What kind of material? Some anti-Islam books written by Robert Spencer, or some more trash from Debbie Shclussel? If it truly is something really useful then give it to everyone else here.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
@Dawood:
I know. They’re quite wrong. (I don’t mean that to apply to JihadBob. I don’t have a good sense where he stands on this subject.) I think most of the people you mention are from protestant backgrounds. Nothing wrong with that, but protestants approach questions of interpretation in a distinctive way. They figure: it’s in the books so it must be what the Muslims believe. And then when a Muslim says, “That’s not what I believe.” They shout the only other Arabic word they know: taqiyah. (The other words is “jihad.”) It gets even more confusing for them when the more innocent Muslims say that the things to which the non-Muslim objects have never even existed in the tradition. And we can begin to see where that leads, unfortunately. I still cannot quite believe that congress is going to have a hearing on this subject. I could not have imagined such a thing a year ago.
Pax,
John
January 12th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
@Mosizzle:
I’ve found that Zawahiri actually has a pretty solid knowledge of the classical texts. I don’t find the ta’arrus argument at all strong, but in general he’s no dullard. Azzam does have a very traditional education, including a PhD from al-Azhar. Remember, too, that Azzam was UBL’s teacher in the years leading up to 1979. Zawahiri seems always to have felt sensitive to the charge that he’s not properly trained. I suspect this is why he always got the important statements endorsed by recognized scholars. UBL used to do the same. Qanta Ahmed and Jasser, by the way, are also both MDs. I think, nonetheless, that they are able to remember something of the tenor of an earlier Islam, a tenor that is often obscured by the too frequent turmoils of the post-1960s Middle East.
I’m curious. What do you think of Qanta and Jasser. Do you find their projects at all compelling?
Cheers,
John
January 12th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
JCLamoreaux,
I don’t think you are aware of your folly which probably shouldn’t surprise me considering you teach at the University that is proud to be the “home of the George W. Bush Presidential Library.” The same president who went to war with Iraq, telling Jacque Chirac, “You know Gog and Magog are going to come out of Iraq. The same president who in a Freudian slip said we are in a “Crusade” against Muslims. The same president whose administration was filled through and through with five star generals, commanders who believed we were in a religious war and they were the legions of Christ. The same president whose Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld received memos and field reports headlined with Biblical verses extolling war for God.
Only, it confirms something that has long been known since Edward Said published his groundbreaking Orientalism, that “Orientalists” such as you are really groomed or co-opted for the purposes of the Empire.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
I second the above by Mosizzle.
By the way, Dr Lamoreaux, have you seen recent texts such as Al-Irhab: al-Tashkhis wa l-Hulul [Terrorism: Diagnosis and Solutions] by ‘Abd Allah bin Bayyah (Deputy President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, Member of the Fiqh Academy in Jeddah and Member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research), not to mention other texts such as Fiqh al-Jihad by Qaradawi (who, like him or not, has authority in the Muslim world as President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, European Council for Fatwa and Research, and a senior member of the International Fiqh Academy).
Both of which, among others, paint a vastly different picture of Islamic thought in the contemporary period than quoting medieval texts as gospel. This is not including previous generation’s texts such as Abu Zahra’s ‘Alaqat al-Dawliya fi l-Islam [International Relations in Islam], and others which again, paint a very different picture to what Spencer, his ilk, and extremists themselves say.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
@Mosizzle: re jizyah
You’re absolutely correct about the abolition of the jizyah. The act was extremely controversial, too. Many argued that it was in fact non-islamic. Further, the abolition had less and less impact the farther one got from the capital. And remember, too, that the authority of the Ottoman Caliph was not universally recognized. In the end, it was the Young Turks who put the nail in that coffin in 1908 (or maybe it was 1909, I forget).
And now, 100 years later we have nutters who want to bring it back. Well, I at least think they nutters. Perhaps you disagree.
I wonder, too: some recent polling data from Egypt suggest that well over 3/4 of the young people (I think they were no older than 28, but I’d have to check) want the country to be ruled by shariah law.
Do you think they mean something like shariah law from (say) the 17th c., or a different, more modern form?
One of the other poll questions from that survey suggested that almost all wanted religious authorities to have _absolutely nothing_ to do with the government.
This suggests that there must be something other than the traditional notion of shariah in their minds.
Best,
John
January 12th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Dawood:
Bin Bayyah’s great. I think he’s making a very honest attempt to balance the fiqh tradition and some of the problems that the Kingdom is currently experiencing. These problems are real. And as far as I can tell KSA is making a ernest effort to deal with them. It’s hard for me to keep up with the latest theological developments there, but I get the sense that his main contribution to the debate will be that of helping bring the jihad back under the authority of the state. To my mind, that’s a good thing.
I’ll confess that I’m conflicted re Qaradawi. He’s a great stylist. He’s clear headed and honest. Poor country boy who worked very hard and accomplished much. These are all fantastic traits. I’ve been reading him for so long and seen him shift position so many times, however, that I confess that I sometimes have a hard time not thinking he’s opportunistic. I really don’t want to believe that about him, though.
Another difficulty for me are the Ikhwan. I’ve a lot of respect for them. I admire their persistence in the face of an enormous amount of brutal treatment and manipulation by the Egyptian government. A number of my really close friends are members of the Brotherhood. I really do hope that they are in the process of evolving into the New Brotherhood and that they’ll be able to play a full role in the future of Egyptian civil society. I’m just not sure I can believe it yet. I think the post-Mubarak transition will help clarify things, at least for me.
John
January 12th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
What’s disgusting?
The extremely offensive and crude comment about divorce, as well as your praise for Debbie Schlussel. Hate to break it to ya, but Debbie’s take on the Copts in Egypt isn’t the only nutty thing she has penned; she has an increasingly long history of being batshit crazy. I know you were commenting on a vitriolic hate site (JihadWatch), but even then, you’ve got to try to be above the dismally low standards of Robert Spencer fans.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Sorry, the link didn’t go through.
“As we say in lawyer jokes, that’s a start. Six down, a few million to go.” (in reference to six Palestinians killed)
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/5251/bhos-3-bs-for-islam-as-fatahhamas-terror-war-continues-what-obama-wont-say-to-the-muslim-world/
January 12th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
“In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.”
–Noah Feldman, “Why Sharia?”
“A common ground for reformers is to recognize the difference between the binding nature of two broad divisions Islamic law: personal (ibadat) and public (muamalat), rules governing strictly ‘religious’ observances (such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage) and civil/criminal transactions (some regulations re marriage, divorce, inheritance, crimes and punishments, and issues of war and peace). The former is believed to be binding on all Muslims and unchanging; much of the latter, many of whose regulations are based upon human reasoning and deductions in specific early historical contexts, is capable of readjustment in light of new historical and social contexts and circumstances.”
–John Esposito, “Answering will Muslims impose Sharia?”
January 12th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Dr. John C. Lamoreaux:
Here’s a complete, point by point rebuttal of Ch. 4 of Robert Spencer’s book; it deals with “Dhimmitude” (a specious term) and a compares the historical treatment of religious minorities in the West and the Islamic world. You can also find Spencer’s response to Loonwatch if you’re interested, which it seems you might be–since you keep on mentioning the dhimmi.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/
“I know. They’re quite wrong. (I don’t mean that to apply to JihadBob. I don’t have a good sense where he stands on this subject.)”
JihadBob is our most prominent loon. He has claimed that most Muslims are fascists and has referred to Muslims as, without caveat, “horrible people”. He has a long history and I could go on, but you get the point.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
@Averroes’ Ghost:
You got me. I’m Satan incarnate, and a member of the neo-conservative cabal, and a card-carrying member of the elders of Zion (in fact, I’m mentioned on page 52 of the Protocols).
What of my initial point? I describe the medieval tradition of the dhimmah. You say I’m wrong, or lying, or nefarious.
If I’m wrong, it would certainly not be the first time.
I don’t think that it’s right to assert that my point is incorrect without providing some evidence.
I think I’m on pretty solid grounds. I’ve included below a short section from Quduri’s Mukhtasar. It’s pretty standard stuff.
NB NB NB I am not and would never suggest that many Muslim believe this is how they should behave today. In fact, in my experience, most Muslims have no knowledge of such parts of the tradition.
I just slapped together the translation. Please forgive the typos and spelling errors. Also, I’m sure there are many places it can be improved. But the point is clear enough. If you can show me a _medieval_ fiqh text that does not have the same basic points, I’d love to see it.
Best,
John
Quduri, Mukhtasar…
Rules concerning the taking of captives and the property of the People of
War
The kuffar’s women and children become slaves upon capture. The same holds for
their slaves. The imam is to exercise his discretion in the case of freeborn
adult men and is to do that which is most advantageous for the Muslims: kill
them, benefaction {{better term?}}, using them as hostages (for [Muslim]
captives or for money), or reduce them to slavery. If the course of action
most advantageous is not clear, he is to keep them in confinement until it does
become clear. Some say: The worshipper of idols is not to be reduced to
slavery. The same holds for the Arab, on another view.
If a kafir becomes a Muslim, he renders his blood immune [i.e., he cannot be
killed]. Choice must then be made from the remaining options. On another view:
it is mandatory to reduce him to slavery.
If a kafir who is male surrenders before he is conquered, he renders his blood
immune; so too, his property, his children, his offspring
{{?sorry, I don’t have a dictionary with me,
and I can’t remember what this term means}}, but not his
wife, according to this madhhab. If she is reduced to slavery, her marriage to
him is immediately severed. Some say, however: If it takes place after
intercourse, the waiting period is to be observed, for
perhaps she shall find that she is pregnant during this period.
It is permissible to enslave the wife of a dhimmi, as well as his slave,
according to the better view, but not the slave of a Muslim or his wife,
according to our madhhab.
If a husband and wife or one of the two is taken captive, their marriage is
voided, if they are free-born. Others say: or slaves.
> jcl
January 12th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
“I’m curious. What do you think of Qanta and Jasser. Do you find their projects at all compelling?”
I, and most other Muslims, are quite suspicious of “Muslim reformers” who seem to have their own agenda and more interested in selling books, appearing in the media and changing Islam to justify their own mistakes rather than looking forward to the development of Muslim society. To find out whether a Muslim reformer is sincere to reform or is just looking for some easy cash (because this is big business!) there is an easy test. If they are supported by anti-Muslim bigots and are used by these bigots to further their own anti-Muslim cause, then they are not sincere. Asra Nomani, who supports racial profiling of Muslims, Zuhdi Jasser, who went out of his way to oppose the Park51 project, and others have received endorsements from people who have often called for the destruction of Muslim places of worship and have justified attacks against Muslim civilians. How can a Muslim trust them if that is the friends that they have? No wonder most Muslims see them as munafiqs or traitors because they don’t care about Muslims, they just want to mold Islam so it is more Western and how they want Islam to be not how God wants it to be. Some of their most outrageous suggestions has Muslims wonder why they don’t just convert to Christianity.
Tariq Ramadan seems sincere to me because he is still a real scholar and academic and is aware of what Muslims around the world feel, at least more than Nomani and Jasser. He has been attacked numerous times by Spencer as a “taqiyya artist” and accusations that he is “Muslim brotherhood”, even though not all of them are terrorists and you mention you have friends in the organisation too. Which is surprising since you comment on JihadWatch and Spencer frequently discusses the Brotherhoods secret evil plan to take over the US but he says that about most Muslim organisations. Reza Aslan is good also, he too believes in reform but is far more respectful than people like Irshad Manji who just outright deny the supremacy of the Quran and has spoken out against known Islamophobes Spencer and Geller and as a result Spencer ridicules him on his hate site. He doesn’t side with Muslim haters which makes him seem way more believable.
Basically, I favour those reformists who aren’t arrogant and say “Just cut this bit out of the Quran” and instead say “what if we interpret this Quranic verse in this way”. Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, a famous Pakistani scholar who sits at the Council of Islamic Ideology of Pakistan, Sheikh Ali Gomaa as well as many other Muslims use the Quran and the Hadith to justify religious tolerance which is why their approach is more successful because what they say has proof. Overall, I find traditional Muslims scholars who have a “modern outlook” to be more preferable because they have more knowledge about Islam than liberal Muslims or secular Muslims whose recommendations often fall outside the fold of Islam. I, as a Muslim, don’t believe there is anything wrong with Islam to start with as Allah has completed it already but the problem is with Muslims who interpret it wrongly.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
JCLamoreaux,
I didn’t call you “satan incarnate.”
I am a bit befuddled by you. I am not taking issue with your comments on ‘Umdat, Quduri, Bulugh, etc. I think those issues are sufficiently addressed by Dawood, and if I have some comment on it that will be of additional value I will not hesitate to put it forth.
Your comments on JW do not befit a scholar of Arabic and professor of Islamic Studies. Your praise of the likes of Schlussel, your demeaning of Islam and Muslims (Allahu Asghar) do not comport with the objective standard of a scholar. All in all the tone of your posts there seem quite abrasive and make me question your agenda. A cursory glance at your website also doesn’t leave me with much hope that you are genuine in your attitude toward Muslims and Islam.
January 12th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
@Nasser:” JihadBob is our most prominent loon. He has claimed that most Muslims are fascists and has referred to Muslims as, without caveat, “horrible people”. He has a long history and I could go on, but you get the point.”
As much as I dislike religious extremism, I dislike bigots more.
If he does believes that I can only imagine that he’s not actually met a Muslim, that he’s afraid of an idea with little connection to reality. But again, I personally would not call a man a racist unless I knew him well. It’s a charge of moral failing that, I think, is too quickly cast in the face of those with whom one disagrees.
I think Cohen has made an important contribution. In fact, I spend some time discussing his book in the one of the things I working on at the moment. I don’t think it is possible, though, to point to this one book or that one book to characterize something as complicated as 1,400 years of history for minorities living in the geographically diffuse lands of Islam. (That includes Spencer’s book, especially when there’s so much really good, non-derivative, solid historical scholarship out there.) I did a comp on this subject in grad school; my reading list had close to 100 books and twice as many articles. The two things I learned: I have a lot more to learn; the subject is really, really complicated.
Re Debbie Schlussel … I don’t have any reason to think that she suffers from mental illness. I don’t have to agree with her to think she’s talented. Heck, I’m a fan of some journalistas with whom I can probably agree on just one thing, that it’s bad to eat babies. At the same time, I do not think that anyone who criticizes Islam is racist, though some are. Debbie pulls not punches when she thinks she’s confident she’s right. Even when I disagree with her, I admire this about her.
Sorry, gotta picks some kids up. I’ll try to drop in again later.
BTW Dawoud. I apologize. I missed your longer post about, when it first can through. You make some really important points. If you’re around later, hopefully we can discuss them. I like to hear more of your views on the Ibn Rushd’s Bidayah.
My kindest regards,
John
January 12th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
I agree with Averroes Ghost. What is your motive? Most other JWers come from their hate site and just post annoying comments and leave. Yet you actually want a serious discussion. Your attitude at the moment conflicts with what you said in the past. You even ask questions as if you are serious about learning something else even though you are more learned than me about these issues and I am no expert. Anyone who trusts Robert Spencer as a scholar, or frequents JihadWatch and agrees with the hate that is posted there on a regular basis cannot seriously be looking for an honest discussion. Judging by your website, you seem to be more of a scholar of Islam than Spencer could dream to be. Yet your comments are very Islamophobic.
What is going on?
January 12th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Dr. John C. Lamoreaux: Great discussion, I for one am enjoying it. It is definitely a nice change of pace compared to what usually occurs around here.
I think most of the people you mention are from protestant backgrounds. Nothing wrong with that, but protestants approach questions of interpretation in a distinctive way. They figure: it’s in the books so it must be what the Muslims believe.
Indeed, but even if the above was the case, the point is that they should be looking at books written by contemporary religious authorities, not medieval texts in order to understand what is happening right now. It simply does not make sense why something written over 600 years ago would remain relevant, except in the most abstract sense.
No doubt the main pre-modern texts in all the madhahib discuss the issue in much the same way, but the point is that the issue of “jihad” is quite different from what is occurring now, which is a non-Muslim minority (“dhimma” in the sense of “protected minority” – if the categorisation is at all still relevant), being attacked by those organisations (I would say terrorists) which do not accept mainstream scholarly authority. The latter has repeatedly decried such attacks and spoken out for the protection of non-Muslim minorities wherever they may be. And anyone who researches this area knows well the famous hadith which in no uncertain terms states that anyone who attacks a protected minority will face Muhammad as an enemy on Judgement Day. I don’t know about you, but if I was a sincere believer in Muhammad’s Prophethood, I would not want him to be my enemy…
And as anyone who researches this area knows well, what is posited in the theoretical books of fiqh, especially mukhtasars such as Quduri, Khalil and others, is not always what was always prescribed in actual cases. The copious amounts of fatwa literature not to mention the Ottoman sijils containing case-notes from qadis etc. shows this clearly. No doubt the main pre-modern texts in all the madhahib discuss the issue in much the same way, but the point is that the issue of “jihad” is quite different to what is now occurring. And again, contemporary scholarly authorities – as Jackson and others have noted – interpret the situation quite differently than both pre-modern scholars, and the terrorists who commit these heinous acts.
I would, in fact, concur with a position shown in another of Prof Jackson’s articles Domestic Terrorism in the Islamic Legal Tradition, that such actions are in fact terrorism, and not rebellion or any other type of category which exists in pre-modern legal theory. Abou El Fadl’s text Rebellion also discusses this categorisation deeply.
January 12th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
I would posit that Bin Bayyah and his work is not simply confined to the Saudi Kingdom – he has a much wider audience and relevance. Besides his teaching post in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, has little to do with the ulama there. He certainly does not have any position in the prominent religious councils that relate specifically to the Kingdom. His work on Muslim minority fiqh and his connection to the European Council, International Fiqh Academy and American Muslim scholars such as Hamza Yusuf, Suhaib Webb and others are important.
His work on the Mardin Fatwa (which, as someone who specialises in the translation-movement period, you should definitely be able to appreciate, especially the issue of mustansikh error) as well as his other writings on takfir and other issues definitely have a much wider scope and appeal. Not to mention his work on the situation of Muslim minorities.
January 12th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
And as for Qaradawi, I pretty much agree. Although the fact that he has been part of collective projects such as the Amman Message and other things definitely shows that although he is respected as a scholar, he is not a lone wolf. His work Fiqh al-Jihad is definitely very interesting, however. Here we have a scholar, long known for his connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, and long known for his approval of fighting against Israel etc., actually countering the key arguments made by extremists/terrorists regarding “jihad”. And this is at an interpretive level, so dealing with naskh and so forth. Prof Jackson delivered a keynote address on this topic at a conference in the UK, and imho it is well worth listening to (mp3, approx 50mb).
January 12th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Dr John C. Lamoreaux: Sorry for the above, Looonwatch has a one link rule before catching posts in the spam filter.
And I have never read your work (though have heard of some, especially the dream interpretation text), but it sounds to me like you are doing some interesting and much needed translation and archival work regarding this important historical period in Middle Eastern history.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
More from JCLamoreaux over at JW:
John C. Lamoreaux replied to comment from gravenimage | January 2, 2011 12:53 AM | Reply
> Why are genuine “moderate Muslims”
> so damned hard to find?
> (This is a rhetorical question) –
There is a Christian Arabic proverb from Syria and Southern Turkey. It goes something like this:
The only Barrani (i.e., Outsiders or Muslims) who want to kill us are those that pray five times a day.
Like most proverbs, it overstates to make its point. But there is a point, and its probably sound: a person committed to the medieval Muslim legal tradition does not and cannot play well with others.
Get rid of that tradition and Islam can become anything Muslims want it to be. The sacred texts of Islam are infinitely malleable in ways that the legal tradition is not.
There are lots of real moderates, and the key differential is the role to be played by the legal tradition. Most are busy living their lives. Few are important enough to make the news. Here in the US, most avoid the mosques. Some are too frightened to speak publicly. (I see this among students at my university: intimidation, mostly from international students, mostly against women.)
The problem is something the Muslims in North America, at least, are going to have to figure out for themselves. I fear there’s little non-Muslims can do to help (apart from ceasing all appeasement), and much to hurt. One sees encouraging signs: some of the Iranian exile groups, e.g., the AFID and Zuhdi Jasser (great speaker, insightful thinker, fantastic in public debate), Hasan Mahmud, and Qanta Ahmed (some of her Huff Post articles will bring tears to the eye). There’s also a century-old tradition of Arab liberalism — it’s still important in the universities if not the streets. Other good stuff happening elsewhere, mostly on the peripheries of the old Muslim heartlands. (Singapore is a good case in point.)
As for failed/failing states like Egypt or Jordan or Morocco or Yemen, etc, I think there is less reason for optimism. Maybe they need first to wade through the gore of a few successful Islamic revolutions. It is somewhat encouraging, I think, that al-Qaeda’s approval rating in Jordan, e.g., went from high 60% to low 20% after the sectarian blood-sport in Iraq, around 2005/6.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Dr. John C. Lamoreaux:
I don’t think it is possible, though, to point to this one book or that one book to characterize something as complicated as 1,400 years of history for minorities living in the geographically diffuse lands of Islam.
The point of the article was to refute Chapter 4 of Robert Spencer’s book, specifically when he claimed that the Jews generally fared better in medieval Christendom than in the medieval Islamic world. Spencer went against the general scholarly consensus, and I’m sure you’ll agree he was wrong on numerous counts. Spencer uses discrimination against non-Muslims in medieval Islamic societies, as well the rules of the sporadically enforced and apocryphal Pact of Umar, to beat Muslims over the head with. It’s wrong, especially when considering the treatment of religious minorities in the Western world, in both modern and pre-modern times.
I have to agree with Averoe’s ghost and Mossizle: you seem rational at times and bigoted at others (I know that may sound harsh). Telling from your comments on several JihadWatch threads, you seem reasonable compared to the characteristically vitriolic JihadWatch crew, even defending Muslims at one point. However, you also made several Islamophobic comments on JihadWatch, including the one about divorce and another one in which you claimed orthodox Muslims could never make good neighbors [Have you ever been to a Muslim-majority country?]. I’m curious of your opinion of folks like Spencer, Geller, and Horowitz, who all capitalize on anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as spread lies about Islam (some of Spencer’s fallacious arguments are highlighted in the article you’re commenting under). Unfortunately, telling from your opinion of Schlussel and your disregard for her genocidal comments, I fear that you opinions of the aforementioned loons may be something other than negative.
I’m curious. What do you think of Qanta and Jasser. Do you find their projects at all compelling?
Frankly, I think Jasser is a naive at best, moronic at worst. Mossizle already highlighted many points as to why, and as he also mentioned, the vast majority of Muslims would probably think the same way about Jasser.
I also notice that you cite a medieval Muslim jurist on slavery and the dhimmi. You do realize that slavery is banned in the Muslim world (albeit relatively recently in some countries)? Many Muslim scholars have argued that Islam was progressive in its treatment of slaves, and that it’s more than compliant with Islam to end slavery (and most Muslim think they’re correct, especially when considering that it’s a great deed to free a slave in Islam). Even the most radical and extreme Muslims stop short of demanding the reinstitution slavery. The only Muslim I heard demand such was the Saudi Sheik Al-Fawzan—and he was almost universally rebuked. Personally, I think you, like Robert Spencer and others, misidentify the problem in the Muslim world as medieval jurists. As this article by Loonwatch proved—and as the rulings of Al-Azhar and the conclusions of numerous scholars of Islam, from Esposito to Bernard Lewis, proved—the actions of terrorists are contradictory to mainstream Islam. The problem isn’t Islam: it’s Western funded proxy wars, and the idiotic creation of Israel (which has had a snowball effect and created numerous problems in the region), it’s the removal of democratically elected government in favor of dictatorships that’ll sell you cheaper oil, it’s the humiliation of Muslims across the world at the hands of foreign powers, and it’s poverty, corruption, and the widespread lack of education that plagues many Muslim countries.
However, (if just not to sound too dismal) even with these problems there are many positive things that can be found. For example, many Muslim countries, like some Arab countries, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc have greatly improved their economies and standards of living. I think in a few decades, many of the problems in the Muslim world will be alleviated, and Muslims will have a greater say everywhere and in everything, from politics to the internet.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
@Mosizzle and Averroes Ghost: re What’s my motive? And NassirH re slavery
(Averrores, You’re missing my best stuff.
I’ve got a recent lengthy post over at the WSJ. I think it’s not too bad.
It was right at the end of the Ahmed op ed a few days ago. It speaks to the
same issues. You might also want to see if you can find
my comments on the Saudis as “the Beverley
HIllbillies of Arabic-speaking Islam”—there were in response to the most recent
death threat against Spencer, by the mujahid with the REALLY bad spelling.)
(NassirH, I’ve got some thoughts on slavery in the WSJ comments.)
Why here? The short answer: I’m having fun.
I usually prefer the company of Salafi friends, though,
who are confident, learned, and good historians. At any rate, I saw
something interesting last night and submitted a comment. Since then I’ve
simply been enjoying the conversations, and learning. There are some serious
things being discussed here, if one can hear them for the noise.
I’ve actually been a reader of LW from (I think) its beginning. It’s a great
resources. It’s also a needed one, if perhaps a political misstep (hopefully, not
irreversible). You all try to keep the folks at JW honest.
And they try to keep you honest. Both sides often play a bit rough. Still, I
think that somewhere in there something interesting is happening.
Shouting is better than silence, I guess.
Still, I wonder what a reflective pause, now and again, might accomplish.
What might happen, for instance, if the folks at LW were to address an open
letter to JW—or vice versa? Ask a couple of sincere and straightforward
questions, try to understand the answers, and then offer measured responses.
There are some silly and shrill people over at JW. There are also some here.
There are also folks of good will both here and there, doing their best to
think through some important things.
The stakes, as we all know, are high, and growing higher all the time.
I’ve helped the government (defense) in a couple of recent terrorism cases,
and I see little reason to think that the issues will go away on their own.
Rather the opposite, I fear.
As I mentioned earlier, I still cannot quite believe that there are going
to be congressional hearings. Crazy times.
Best,
JCL
January 12th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
It seems to me that the bombing of the Christian church in Alexanderia,Egypt and the bombing of the Najat church last month in Baghdad,Iraq and the attempts being made to creat a religious strife/civil war between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon and what is going on in Sudan between the Islamic north and Christian south are all connected. The purpose is to divide and conquer the already divided Arab world. More importantly,the evil forces behind such murderous and tragic events want to show the rest of the world how intolerant Islam and Muslims are. Such parallel and bloody events could not possibly occur without a stratigic plan for the whole region of the Middle East in particular and Islamic world in general.
However,similar evil attempts were tried before in time past,for instant,in Lebanon,in Bosnia and in Egypt,but always always always,Christians and Muslims in those countries allowed their better judgment to prevail at the end.
Allowing history to be the guide,the current attempts to create a wedge between Christians and Muslims will fail also,as the finality of the battle for the hearts and minds of human race reaches its entropic and chaotic paramount end-point. Only the passage of time will tell…
January 12th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
@Dawood: “Indeed, but even if the above was the case, the point is that they
should be looking at books written by contemporary religious authorities, not
medieval texts in order to understand what is happening right now.”
This is where I think the Protestantism is kicking in. Back to the sources.
Sola scriptura.
I suppose it was inevitable, though. As I remember it, the process started
around 9/11. Folks hear the things Bin Laden or Zawahiri are saying and ask
WTF? Is that Islam? So they grab a copy of the Qur’an. They are unable to
account for the extremism based on their reading of the text. They then turn to
the hadith. Again, they see small echoes of the extremists, but no sufficient
explanation. It was about this time (let’s say, mid-2003) that books like
Firestone, D. Cook, and the reprint of Makdisi begin to appear on the market.
I think that’s when attention was first given to the legal tradition. (Bat Yeor
was always in the background, but as her books contains little legal material,
they made little impact.)
In the legal tradition, people found something that at least kinda-sorta
resembled the things the extremists were saying. But access to the tradition
was limited. There are so few texts in translation. Even worse, the
readers of the texts have absolutely no way to contextualize what they encounter.
We’ve begun to learn a lot about the contextualization of the law in the last
twenty years or so. Parts of the legal tradition had the force of law, it
seems, pretty much up until the modern period: family law and inheritance, as
well as ritual and iman (of course). Other parts were supplanted by
non-shari’ah codes. The laws remained on the books, but they were an ideal for
contemplation more than anything. They were not unlike the Talmud’s attention
to the ritual laws of temple sacrifice, many hundreds of years after the temple
had ceased to exist.
Take something like the dhimmah, jizyah, and kharaj. We have lots and lots of
texts written by non-Muslims during the first few centuries of Islam. We also
have the invaluable evidence of the papyri from Egypt. A study of those
sources suggests that there is often a fairly wide gap between the legal codes of
the fuqaha and what is being practices on the ground. Whether the laws were
harsher or more lenient, it seems usually to have been up to the governors of
the different provinces. And they were guided by issues of practicality! Like all
politicians….
Most especially, they were concerned with the maintenance of a rural tax base.
It is that slow trickle to the center of taxes in monies and kind from the 95%
of the population living the villages that formed the life blood of all
pre-modern states. That trickle is subject to many potential disasters.
Epidemic disease seems to have been the main cause of collapse in the first few
Islamic centuries: not least due to waves of the bubonic plague that swept
through Afro-Eurasia in 15 year cycles. The other major cause of collapse was
over-taxation. It could lead to mass conversion, for a time discouraged, but
eventually allowed after the tax system had been restructure. More
problematic: the flight of peasant farmers. For a time, an effort was made to
check this, through the use of ‘neck-seals’ (worn about the neck, to indicate
to which farm one belonged and the amount of the assessment for that year).
Such seals could only be replaced by the authorities, and this would happen
once a year, during tax collection season.
Some of the above-concerns resemble what we find in the legal texts, but much does
not. And remember, this is the formative period of the tradition.
The tension between bookish ideal and practical reality never really came to an
end. It was a feature of the tradition up to the relatively recent past.
What then of the books? They are there. They bear a tradition that remains
relatively stable. But one cannot, as you also argue, just point to the books
and say, “Look, this is Islam.” It’s always been more complicated than that.
Sorry, but I’m going to have to call it quits, my hands are killing me.
Perhaps we can pick this up later. In the meantime, it has been a real
pleasure. (My email address can be found at the SMU website and at my personal
website.)
Until next time.
John
January 12th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
JCL, what is your view on your comments that have been branded as ‘Islamophobic’?
January 12th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Hi Garo – do you suspect Mossad as being behind this operation, to drive a wedge between Christians and Muslims?
Clearly Egyptian Muslims and Christians live together in harmony. I know this because the articles and posters on this site tell me to think so.
Also, what is your take on that police officer who gunned down a Coptic pensioner on a train today?
January 12th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Dr Lamoreaux: I too am enjoying the conversation. I would definitely be interested in finding out more about how you helped the government in terrorism cases being that (at least according to your CV and publication record) your academic oeuvre is classical and early-Medieval Arab Christianity, medicine, dream interpretation and other related fields. I also could not find the WSJ article you mentioned, though I searched on their site for your surname. I’d definitely be interested to read it.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Averroe, that’s a good point, clearly JCL is Islamophobic if he comments about Egyptian Copts who have their tongues sliced off for preaching.
JCL, perhaps in the future you could consider not mentioning alleged Muslim misdeeds against Christians because that would promote hate of Islam.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:02 am
“Hi Garo – do you suspect Mossad as being behind this operation, to drive a wedge between Christians and Muslims?”
It’s a common Al-Queda tactic, though I wouldn’t put it past an intelligence agency such as Mossad, RAW or ISI. But it clearly is a tactic because as events have shown and as anyone who has been to Egypt or spoken to Egyptians know, this sort of thing is not common amongst normal Egyptians. Or are you going to use your mass mind reading to prove me wrong on that? Yes, we are telling you that because while there are people here, self included, who have first hand experience of Egypt and Egyptians, some posters are Egyptian as well, your ‘experience’ is….. well what is it? Mind reading as far as I can make out.
“Also, what is your take on that police officer who gunned down a Coptic pensioner on a train today?”
Madman with a gun firing at a crowd, how could he have known that his victim was Coptic? They don’t wear special signs or anything and they look just like other Egyptians, many even wear headscarves. The fact that he managed to injure Muslims as well, i.e. that he was aiming at just about anyone, is proof of this. Unless of course you’ve read his mind as well.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Jack, check your email please.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:10 am
Dr Lamoreaux, regarding your comment “What might happen, for instance, if the folks at LW were to address an open letter to JW—or vice versa? Ask a couple of sincere and straightforward questions, try to understand the answers, and then offer measured responses.”
Danios, one of the writers here has offered to debate Robert Spencer on a number of occasions as you are no doubt aware. A number of posters here have also been posting on JW and were subsequently banned. Personally I think Mr Spenser doesn’t want such a debate or talk, all he wants is debates he can ‘win’ and talk that ‘proves’ his points. I don’t find him at all honest in his dealings or his writings. I’d love to do such a thing and it is in fact one of my projects that is in the pipeline. But again I doubt Mr Spencer would take it up nor would many of his readers who are quite happy with their shrieking bigotry. Other than that, I am happy to have level conversations with just about anyone who wants to in order to sort this whole thing out and maybe make the world a nicer place because of it. Ins’allah.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:14 am
Garo isn’t Muslim. Oops, there goes Bob’s eager hope that he would find one Muslim who thinks Mossad is behind it…then aha! the majority of Egyptian Muslims must believe the same thing. Fail.
And I don’t know about you, but Allahu Asghar seems pretty Islamophobic to me.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:17 am
@ JCL
Respect to you, you are much more balanced then I think both LW and JW readers, tho I dint think being biased in LW’s favor is ad bad as in JW’s favor: LW never called any religion fascist as Spencer did. I think if we were to compare frequent commentators on this site to the ones on JW, there’d be a sharp contrast in intelligence.. I’ve gotten in debates in JW; I admit i lost every single one of them but even if I was able to defeat them.. The readers are insulting, use words like “sandnigger” frequently, and a lot more colorful vocabulary. Also, if you are a Muslim (or muzzie as I like to say) you are immediately disqualified from anything your gonna say
January 13th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Cynic – email Jack, lol.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Cynic. Email. Now.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:34 am
thebandofstrangers@blogspot.com right?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:37 am
Nevermind…got it.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:39 am
Spencer has accepted Danios’ offer and agreed to a one-on-one debate.
It is Danios who has refused.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:43 am
You claim you’re Egyptian but are unaware that Egyptian Christians are easily distinguishable from Egyptian Muslims. Hmmmmmm….
Never mind that, the story so far is that it appears the police officer targeted Copts in a sectarian attack.
Now, the question is, how are you going to spin this incident?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:45 am
“Spencer has accepted Danios’ offer and agreed to a one-on-one debate.
It is Danios who has refused.”
He only offered a one to one debate because he knows that Danios likes his privacy and doesn’t want to be in the public eye, nor could he afford it financially, he did it so he didn’t have to debate. And if Danios said yes? What do you think would happen? We both know the answer to that, it would be another excuse. Danios is not the first he has refused and he won’t be the last. Spenser regularly engages in e-mail debate, at least he used to, he could do the same with Danios. The fact is that he won’t.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:46 am
^ Who the hell are you talking to Bob?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:51 am
No bob, I didn’t claim I was Egyptian and as has been posted in other posts I am from the UK residing in Malaysia with experience of the ME. No, they look like Arabs and they dress like Egyptians and as I said, many wear headscarves unless you’d like to prove otherwise. It is you that is spinning, not me, if he was targeting Copts how come he chose a public place full of Muslims and manage to inure a number of Muslims? He could have gone to a place where they congregate like a meeting hall or Church. No one is suggesting he targeted anyone and the facts support this.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:53 am
He only offered a one to one debate because he knows that Danios likes his privacy and doesn’t want to be in the public eye
ROTFLMAO !!
What is he, a vampire or something?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:54 am
JB – Why don’t you just leave it alone? You are not accomplishing the goals you seem to have set unless you goal has been driving more people to research Islaam and come to Islaam. If you are just hanging around for the sake of trolling then you seriously need a hobby. If your here to play devils advocate and inspire people to actually research Islaam then stick around!
January 13th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Copts have tattoos on their wrists.
The report(s) said (are saying) the off duty police officer checked the identity of his victims before he opened fire and yelled ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he squeezed the trigger.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:56 am
What is he, a vampire or something?
I think my IQ dropped a couple of points.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Thanks for your support, Lily.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:12 am
“What is he, a vampire or something?”
Best reply? Nope, he just likes privacy. I’m the opposite, I’m kewl with people knowing who I am and where I live, most people aren’t.
“Copts have tattoos on their wrists.”
Great, so he went around politely asking these people to show their wrists and then shot a load of Muslims anyway?
“The report(s) said (are saying) the off duty police officer checked the identity of his victims before he opened fire and yelled ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he squeezed the trigger.”
Oh that does it, he said Allahu Akbar so obviously, Jihadists taking over the world again… now where are these reports?
January 13th, 2011 at 1:19 am
“Spencer has accepted Danios’ offer and agreed to a one-on-one debate.
It is Danios who has refused.”
LOL
Allahu A’lam
January 13th, 2011 at 2:17 am
“Spencer has accepted Danios’ offer and agreed to a one-on-one debate.
It is Danios who has refused.”
How do you know? Where has Spencer said so publicly? Provide a source for this.
If he hasn’t said so publicly, how do you know then? One indication more that you’re Spencer yourself.
In any case, a laughable claim.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:37 am
“Spencer has accepted Danios’ offer and agreed to a one-on-one debate.”
Lol. Spencer knows that Danios does not want to reveal his name so, in order to avoid debate, Spencer placed the condition that he has to reveal his name. Revealing his name is entirely irrelevant to the debate, especially since Robert Spencer was challenged to a radio debate, which he has done many times before, so it is clear Spencer “accepted” the challenge by not accepting the challenge. I don’t consider that an acceptance to debate but a lazy excuse to buy time so he can look around for some more medieval texts that no one has heard of until he can respond to any of Danios’ points on the radio.
He has previously said,
“Debating such a compromised and dishonest individual would be a waste of time”
Obviously, he “accepted” the challenge, adding two conditions that Danios cannot currently fulfil and that Spencer knows he cannot fulfil, only to prevent him from looking like an idiot and hypocrite in front of Ahmed Rehab. He failed.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/internet-sociopath-robert-spencer-scared-of-debate
Danios’ offer of a radio debate is still open. It is Spencer who has not responded to that. So no, Robert Spencer did not accept the debate that Danios had proposed.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:53 am
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/95/3748/Egypt/Attack-on-Egypt-Copts/Eye-witness-describes-the-Egypt-train-shooting.aspx
“Passenger reveals how the gunman fired indiscriminately as he through the carriage, targeting neither Copts nor Muslims”
Egyptian authorities also deny it was religiously motivated and this passenger was there at the scene of the crime. But why trust them when PsychicBob can read the killer’s mind.
Even if he did target Copts, what does that prove? Do the actions of a crazy gunman prove that this was acceptable behaviour in Islam. No, because if they were then he wouldn’t be in jail.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:56 am
“Al-Din said the man tried to shoot two Muslims who wrestled with him but he had run out of ammunition.”
http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=24109
Typical JB, ignore the two good Muslims who risked their lives to try and stop him and focus on the man that Egyptian authorities say has a mental disorder and became frustrated on the train. It is of course too early to say whether this was religiously motivated, but it’s clear that JB wants it to have been religiously motivated.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:57 am
Dr. JCL:
…there were in response to the most recent
death threat against Spencer, by the mujahid with the REALLY bad spelling.
I saw that comment of yours, and just so you know, it wasn’t a death threat at all.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/robert-spencer-of-jihadwatch-becomes-desperate-against-loonwatch/
JihadBob:
Spencer asked Danios to debate him, then Danios accepted and Spencer chickened out. Rehab pointed out that Spencer is a hypocrite, and Spencer said hewanted Danios to reveal his identity (why?). Also, Danios had challenged Hugh Fitzgerald to a debate and not a word from Spencer. Spencer also refused to debate Jalal Abualrub.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:02 am
And just to add irony to Bob’s talk of conspiracy theories.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/a-victory-for-the-constitution-ok-bill-struck-down/#comment-40306
January 13th, 2011 at 11:43 am
@NassirH: re conspiracy theories
To my mind, way too many conspiracy theories in both Muslim and non-Muslim
circles! I think it a sign of massive cultural decay, and of traditions that
lack self-confidence and the ability to engage in self-criticism. My GOP can
often be quite silly on both counts. So too, my own religious community. More
generally, the disregard of responsible and critical historical analysis is an
important indicator of trouble.
As best I can tell, conspiracy theories and bad history are the main fuel for absurd
mythic narratives about one’s self and one’s community.
It has been said:
Those who refuse to do history will die of their myths.
@Dawood: re terrorism cases
You’re right. My writing is on religion in the early medieval Near East. Our
training, at most universities, is quite broad. In my case, I’ve also always
had a keen interest in salafi and political Islam broadly defined. (I think
this must at least be partly a result of my own conservative Christian
upbringing. It’s hard to explain, but I would far rather pass an hour chatting
with a salafi than a leftist, even though politically I have more in common
with the leftist.)
At any rate, in court cases, both defense and prosecution often employ
professional scholars of Islam as “expert document witnesses”. We do
translations and help the court contextualize materials. Let’s say one of the
pieces of evidence is a treatise on the law of Jihad. It might be significant,
but it might also be totally innocent. A treatise on Jihad by a non-extremist
Alexandrian Salafi, e.g., needs to be treated very different than a similar
treatise from (say) Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Those of us who do such work
seldom actually provide testimony.
There are also some professional scholars of Islam doing similar work Europe in
programs seeking to understand and work through problems related to
immigration. The French and Dutch, in particular, have been seeking their help
in trying to find the best way to move forward. The U.S., too, has such
programs, but they seem to have relied more heavily on leaders of the Muslim
community and foreign-policy/think-tank types. I’m not sure this has been
entirely wise.
The leaders of the Muslim community in the U.S. know Islam but often have
trouble thinking about Islam in a comparative perspective. That’s one of the
things we in Religious Studies do really well. As for the
foreign-policy/think-tank types, they are almost always really, really smart.
But in my experience, a high percentage just don’t get religion. They either
reduce it to something they do understand, such as politics or economics, or
they just give up … and then, folks like the Muslim Brothers might just as
well be space aliens.
For those of us who study religion academically, there’s absolutely nothing
remarkable about the Brotherhood. If one wishes to understand it, it needs to
be seen from a comparative perspective and studied alongside the other so-called
millenarian movements that have arisen around the globe since the mid- to
late-19th century.
@JihadBob re Islamophobia
Am I Islamophobic?
I don’t know. Here’s why. I do not understand what the term “Islamophobia”
means. I checked my DSM-IV, this pathology is not included. I’m told that it
will not be included in the DSM-V.
If as a linguist I look at how the term is used, it seem to mean nothing more
than “you disagree with me and I don’t like you and I don’t want other people
to like you and I want them to think you’re evil.”
If this is the meaning of the term, it has no more cognitive value than a good
fart.
If we take the term in its etymological sense, “fear” of “Islam,” there is
a bit more content to it, but not much.
How can one be afraid of a set of ideas? Abstract ideas do not have an
independent existence. I’m afraid Plato was wrong on that point.
If by the term “Islam” is meant “Muslims,” then there is at least a question
that can be answered.
Am I afraid of ALL Muslims. No. That would be silly.
Am I afraid of MOST Muslims. No. That would be silly.
Am I afraid of SOME Muslims. Yes. That’s entirely reasonable.
There are extremists, and they are sometimes dangerous to me and mine.
Some of them need killin’.
Most of them need to be let be. I think that me and mine are _morally
obligated_ to let even the French and the extremists live their lives as they
choose, provided they let me and mine do the same.
They may not like us. We may not like them. They may think our women are all
whores. We may laugh to scorn their terror of women. They may think we worship
a skinny dead Jew. We may think they worship a male Kali.
Where I come from, that’s called multiculturalism.
My two dirhems.
Cheers all, John
January 13th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
@Mosizzle, NassirH, Muhammad Abd al-Haqq, and The Sphinx: re debate
Interesting. I didn’t know that bit of recent history.
I wonder if a public debate is the best way of getting at the heart of the
matter. Not enough time. Folks are nervous. The one liner replaces reflection.
The debaters are trying to impress the young ladies.
If someone or a group were to post a formal letter (“An Open Letter to Robert
Spencer, On Questions of Racism and Religion,” or whatever), here and at some
other sites around the web, Spencer would be bound by honor and duty to
respond. He would have no choice. Of course, were Spencer to do the same, his
opponents would have to respond as well.
This way of forcing a debate has a long and noble history. A Google search on
“open letter debate” will pull up lots of examples.
The best thing, though, is that readers have a much easier time figuring out
what is at issue and where both sides stand.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
JCLamoreaux,
First I have to say that, you of all people, a sort of specialists in Medieval Muslim tradition should know that AlQaeda and its clone organizations are not even acting in accordance with the “legal tradition.” The murder of Copts goes against even such a tradition, since “vigilantism” and rebellion against authority is strictly prohibited in Islam.
What you are talking about in the discussion in regards to those who have violated the terms of Dhimma and the just retribution for that is the prerogative of Amir/Sultan, i.e. the one in authority. So one clearly sees that on all levels even from a classical, medieval legal perspective these terrorists have no case. So its a non-starter, a moot point especially when we factor in our present context.
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that you can play so innocent and naive when it comes to understanding “Islamophobia,” it is an irrational fear of Islam. What you seem to be saying sounds a lot like what Pascal Bruckner was saying: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/fake-enlightened-liberal-democrats-making-excuses-for-anti-muslim-bigotry/
You then say:
Am I afraid of ALL Muslims. No. That would be silly.
Am I afraid of MOST Muslims. No. That would be silly.
Am I afraid of SOME Muslims. Yes. That’s entirely reasonable.
There are extremists, and they are sometimes dangerous to me and mine.
Some of them need killin’.
Well the same could be said about Americans or Christians or Israelis, etc.:
Am I afraid of ALL Americans. No. That would be silly.
Am I afraid of MOST Americans. No. That would be silly.
Am I afraid of SOME Americans. Yes. That’s entirely reasonable.
There are extremists, and they are sometimes dangerous to me and mine.
Some of them need killin’.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“Some of them need killin’.”
Because there is no other solution but to kill them. Right…
January 13th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“If someone or a group were to post a formal letter (“An Open Letter to Robert
Spencer, On Questions of Racism and Religion,” or whatever), here and at some
other sites around the web, Spencer would be bound by honor and duty to
respond. He would have no choice. Of course, were Spencer to do the same, his
opponents would have to respond as well.”
Interesting suggestion. I think what Danios has done by posting refutations to Spencer’s book is similar, he expects a reply from Spencer. When he released his article on “Dhimmitude”, Spencer found out about it and wrote a few lines in a blog post, without mention what he was referring to specifically or giving a link to the article or even mentioning it came from LoonWatch. Danios still responded to all of his points but then it stopped. Spencer refused to continue the unofficial debate which is when Danios formally asked for a debate on the radio.
Here is all you need to know:
http://spencerwatch.com/2010/06/17/danios-of-loonwatch-accepts-robert-spencer’s-challenge-to-a-debate/
January 13th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Dr Lamoreaux: Thank you for the insight into the role of “expert witnesses” in the US justice system. As I’m not from there it’s a welcome addition to my scant knowledge of the subject.
More generally, the disregard of responsible and critical historical analysis is an important indicator of trouble.
Agreed 100% on this. History and understanding how socio-political contexts shape ideas (and vice versa?) are integral in understanding something like the Islamic religious tradition(s), especially law and jurisprudence. Unfortunately, for many, this is the one thing which is neglected – both by Muslims and non-Muslim “experts”.
Our training, at most universities, is quite broad.
Indeed, and this is one of the few benefits in the rather undefined nexus called “Islamic Studies” in academia. The US system of coursework before the thesis in the MA/PhD strand is definitely very useful in that regard.
I’ve also always had a keen interest in salafi and political Islam broadly defined.
Such is the nature of the academic – there’s not enough time in the world to follow all strands of inquiry at once! I’m curious as to how you developed your interest in both salafism and the pre-modern intellectual (and Arab Christian) tradition, being that they are in some sense exclusive (I do not know many Salafis, for example, interested in the commentaries on Galen). My own research at present is leading me to focus somewhat on the 19th century Damascene revivalist traditiont, from approximately the time of Ibn ‘Abidin until al-Qasimi. They are quite a different flavour to those known as “Salafi” today!
There are also some professional scholars of Islam doing similar work Europe in programs seeking to understand and work through problems related to immigration.
Definitely, the GSRL/CNRS is doing some amazing work, amongst other things. The whole Euro-Islam initiative is very interesting, as is Dr Scott Atran’s recent work on terrorism (published recently as Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists, which I would recommend everyone to read if they can find it).
For those of us who study religion academically, there’s absolutely nothing remarkable about the Brotherhood. …
Agreed.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Dr. JCR:
As Mossizle already pointed out, Loonwatch and JihadWatch used have exchanges, and Loonwatch would win every time (you can check the archives and see for yourself). Eventually, Spencer got frustrated and even threatened Danios with 101 lashes. Spencer ultimately gave up and just ignores Loonwatch now, despite the fact that its writers are ripping his arguments to shreds.
The point is, even if we sent an open letter to Spencer, he wouldn’t care or respond. He is too disingenuous and full of pride and chauvinism to engage in rational discussion. Just watch his debates if you want proof: his chief qualities seem to be bringing a bigoted crowd and giggling at his opponents.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Sorry, it was supposed to be “Dr. JCL”
PS: I both agree and disagree with a lot of what you say, and I respect your ability to be rational. As for open replies to Robert Spencer, here’s one, and it makes a salient point that has already been discussed on this thread.
Moreover, you seem to think that all you need to do to understand Muslims is read religious texts and look at extremists. The 99.9% of Muslims who don’t engage in violence against the West, the vast majority of whom don’t base their life of the ‘Umdat as-Salik (however important it might be for religious scholars), whose lives are incredibly diverse, complex and conflicted, and whose dreams for their futures and those of their children and their societies are in fact quite close to ours, just don’t seem to count much to you. That’s too bad–and if you don’t believe me, believe the report by the Defense Science Board released last week that warns President Bush that Muslims don’t hate our freedom and ideology but rather our support for all those supposedly “moderate” regimes which are in fact incredibly repressive and corrupt governments whose continued existence is owed to US backing.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
@NassirH
I do think that there are some people who respond to individual Muslims or to Muslims as a whole in totally irrational ways. The term “Islamophobia” as it is currently used by English speaking Muslims seems to be casting its net too widely. It has almost devolved into a vague term of general disapprobation.
Try this experiment. Do a search for “Islamophobe” and set a timer for five minutes. See how many Islamophobe individuals, groups, and even ideas, can be cut and pasted.
Here’s what I came up with. Scout’s honor. Five minutes, plus a minute or two to fix the caps, delete the duplicates, and %!sort the list.
Lady Gaga?
===JCL===
Americans
Angela Merkel
Anti-Defamation League
Barack Obama
Bernard Lewis
Catholics
Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks
Christian Democratic Party [Australia]
Conservatives
Controversial columnists
Daniel Pipes
David Gaubatz
Debbie Schlussel
Delta [airlines]
Divisive religious leaders
Europe
Facebook
Feminists
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Franklin Graham
George W. Bush
Germans
Grover Norquist
Heinz-Christian Strache
James Lafferty
Jerry Falwell
Jewish Defence League of Canada
Jewish financiers
Jews
John Howard
Juan Williams
Judith Miller
Lady Gaga
Lebanese-Christians
Minnesota
National Review
Neoconservatives
New Yorkers
Nicolas Sarkozy
Norway
Pat Condell
Pat Robertson
Pedophiles
Protestants
Pundits
Rep. Sue Myrick
Republican House {Members}
Republicans
Robert Spencer
Samuel Huntington
Secularists
Sergio Redegalli [painter]
South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi
Steve Emerson
Swiss
Talk-show hosts
Texans
U.S. Army
US trainers [i.e., those who train DHS]
University of California at Berkeley
Viewer of the “700 Club” TV show
Vlaams Belang
Westerners
World Net Daily
January 13th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Imagine you were assigned the task of writing a law against _one_ of the three
following phobias. The law has to be specific enough that the courts can use
it. What would the law look like? Now use that same law as the model for
a law against the other two phobias.
I can just about get something that works for the EDL and Mormonism. I’ve had
no luck with Platonism. I’ll share my laws if folks want to share theirs.
[The following is based on CAIR's definition of Islamophobia.]
The phobia of Mormonism is characterized by:
Mormonism is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities.
Mormonism does not share common values with other major faiths.
Mormonism as a religion is inferior to other religions.
Mormonism is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
Mormonism is a violent religious ideology.
The phobia of the EDL is characterized by:
The EDL is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities.
The EDL does not share common values with other major political parties.
The EDL as a political organization is inferior to the other political organizations.
The EDL is a party of violence and supports terrorism.
The EDL is a violent political ideology.
The phobia of Platonism is characterized by:
Platonism is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities.
Platonism does not share common values with other major philosophies.
Platonism as a philosophy is inferior to the Aristotelianism.
Platonism is a philosophy of violence and supports terrorism.
Platonism is a violent political ideology.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
@JihadBob re Islamophobia
I understand that, but when you mention incidents of Egyptian Christians having their tongues cut off for preaching, that *is* Islamophobia.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
“I understand that, but when you mention incidents of Egyptian Christians having their tongues cut off for preaching, that *is* Islamophobia.”
No it’s not. http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf
January 13th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
We all noticed that you dropped everything else you were talking about bob, thought you should know. Shall we call that done? Fine by me.
“I understand that, but when you mention incidents of Egyptian Christians having their tongues cut off for preaching, that *is* Islamophobia.”
No, mentioning these incidents as if they are the norm, happen every day and only reporting such incidents without letting Muslims get a word in edgeways (unless they are a nutter) and mixing it with bits about how the Qu’ran etc commands it *is* one product of Islamaphobia.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
I understand that, but when you mention incidents of Egyptian Christians having their tongues cut off for preaching, that *is* Islamophobia.
One thing I’ve noticed about racists, anti-Semites, and other bigots, especially Islamophobes, is that they’re in denial about their own bigotry and prejudices. The results of their irrationality can be seen on this thread, where JihadBob didn’t want to believe in scientific polls, widely reported events, etc because they all didn’t fit his preconceived notions. And that is *after* Bob demanded that we give evidence supporting a claim that the article by Loonwatch never made (despite JihadBob’s initial misreading). And to add irony to this all, Bob himself made several unfounded claims on this very thread (let’s not even get started on the other things he’s claimed!), and yet has provided real evidence supporting his assertions. Apart from that, he’s lying again when he claims that Dr. JCL comments were branded as Islamophobic because of his mentioning of the Coptic preacher. Here’s the actual reason, as first explained by Averroes’ ghost.
Or see this quite disgusting quote. John C. who is supposed to be a distinguished professor is getting low-down, admires Schlussel, and says present day Egypt is akin to Nazi Germany
Now Bob, you can either admit you’re lying or move on to another topic and get your ass handed to again, like always.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Sorry, what is claiming that Muslims are the new Jews of Europe, again?
January 13th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
How about you actually respond to our points? I showed that you were either lying or stupid, and all you can do is say something off-topic. Perhaps more than anything else, it reveals the weakness of your position and your inability for rational discussion.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
“Sorry, what is claiming that Muslims are the new Jews of Europe, again?”
Unreliable Sources by John Simpson, read it, especially the stuff about how the media reported on Jews in the 1900′s to 1940′s. And also answer our points rather than being childish.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Also, who specifically claimed that “Muslims are the new Jews of Europe”? You’re putting words in others’ mouths, again.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/spencer-distorts-egyptian-society-spreads-interfaith-bigotry/#comment-50245
*and yet has not provided any real evidence
January 13th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
It most likely is wonderful to converse with Orientalists, it is maybe even possible to befriend a few. I am sure I would have enjoyable conversations with Bernard Lewis and the like but at the end of the day it does not mean that they are not in the service of Empire. IMO, JCLamoreaux is a quintessential example of such, at least from what appears on JW, his site and a few comments here on LW.
First he slightly swerved off topic and while opening up an interesting discussion and dialogue the main premise of his points were deeply flawed. He said,
“the trouble for the Copts is that the extremists regard them as having violated the terms of the dhimmah. And to my knowledge, all traditional texts are clear their lives and property (anfus wa-amwal) are thus forfeit…In such a case, it is wholly in the discretion of the imam to decide their fate: death, slavery, hostage, or make them dhimmi…This was well noted by the brave young men in Iraq in their attacks on Chaldeans/Assyrians…It was also the justification used for years in Upper Egypt to collect protection money from Coptic business owners. Back in the day, this was a main source of funding for the Jama`ah…One could argue that none of these minorities broke the dhimmah. Indeed, how could they when they are citizens in nation states that do not even recognize the existence of such a thing. The extremists disagree. If they are right on this point, can one really say that what they did was wrong?”
AlQaeda and the Jama’ah basically have the same ideology, both are takfiri groups that also consider many Muslims to be kafirs and or treasonous renegades from the Faith, and they therefore also make the lives and property of Muslims forfeit. In this they are opposed by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, I would venture to say over 99%. In fact Egyptian clerics of all stripes, Salafists, Ikhwanis, Sufis, Traditionalists, etc. combated this trend in the 80′s and 90′s quite successfully. Your lazy statement that “if they (the extremists) are right on this point, can one really say that what they did was wrong?” is extremely wrongheaded. In fact your own post exposes your faulty logic, those who are the masters and upholders of the legal tradition from all the major centers of Islamic learning, even those who have edited and published the great medieval fiqh manuals have resoundingly condemned AlQaeda and its clone orgs. You mention one reason why they do so because as you state “it is wholly in the discretion of the imam.” Who is the Imam/Sultan/Amir? Alqaeda and their affiliates are nothing but Muharabs or at the least vigilantes who are acting outside of the legal tradition, in fact their whole project is thoroughly modern.
All of the above of course only to highlight it from the classical legal tradition, but what of our modern context, what about reality?
You then go on to seemingly justify Islamophobia, attempting to obfuscate the definition. A quick test such as that just wont do, if you have been following LW, you will know that an irrational fear of Islam, a rising anti-Muslim bigotry exists and has been instrumentalized predominantly by those in the Right-Wing.
Most of those in your test are Islamophobes, there are bound to be a few who may be anomalies and some actually may themselves be victims of Islamophobia, i.e. Barack Obama (you need not be Muslim to be a victim of Islamophobia, just mistaken for one, by the way did you know Spencer believes Obama “may be” Muslim?).
However your actions on JW as I said before call into question your motives and attitudes toward Islam, which seem to be far from scholarly or friendly.
-Your saying Allahu Asghar in mock reference to Allahu Akbar
-Your admiration for Debbie Schlussel, a really vile individual
-Your debasing of the Quran
-Blaming Christian anti-Semitism on Muslims
-Your denying the existence of Islamophobia by bringing lame and trivial definitions
January 13th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Dawood:
I think 19th-century Syria is a fantastic choice for research. While we’re
begin to get a good understanding of what’s taking place in Istanbul, we still
know so little about the intellectual history of the provinces. Based on the
little I’ve read, the vitality of intellectual life in Syria, especially in the
decades leading up to the end of the century, was nothing short of astounding.
There was real ferment, but still a strong system of traditional education. And
the questions were mostly being asked for the first time. There were Salafis,
anti-Salafis, the stirrings of nationalism, the tension between Turkish and
Arab traditions. So many things were being thrown into the pot at once. And
what cooks there were! Qasimi … the Bitars and the Khanis … Rafiq al-Azm
… Nabahani — especially Nabahani, a few words from his pen must have
reduced grown men in tears.
I’d love to read more texts from the period. The books are so hard to find,
though. I’ve also had little luck with the literary journals. Some friends in
Damascus are occasionally able to find things for me, but the books are getting
rarer and much more expensive.
It’s been a long time since I worked in the Asad library. Is it still pretty
easy to get access?
What do you think of Commins’ Islamic Reform in Late Ottoman Syria?
Best,
John
January 13th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
@NassirH: re D.S.
I tried to find all such statements on the blog of D.S., but I’m not sure I got
them all. If I understand correctly what I did find, this is what she’s saying:
“Hamas and Fatah are engaged in fratricidal strife. Hamas guys are
killed. That is a good thing.”
Please correct me if this is a misunderstanding.
Given her _presuppositions_, I’m not at all sure that such a response is
morally objectionable. The presuppositions may be wrong, but that’s a different
matter entirely.
#
Grant two fundamentally irreconcilable views of the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict:
1. The Palestinians, especially Hamas, want to kill my people. And that’s bad.
2. The Jews, especially Israelis, want to kill my people. And that’s bad.
Under view 1, if Palestinians kill each others, fewer of your people are
likely to be killed.
Under view 2, if Israelis kill each other, fewer of your people are likely to
be killed.
If one accepts the respective presuppositions, both views are entirely rational.
During WWII, if a civil war were to have broken out in Japan, would it not be
odd if Americans had not been happy?
#
To say that such views are rational, does not (to my mind) necessarily make
them moral.
I can imagine a situation such as the following: The amount of harm occurring
among my enemy entails a greater evil than what would be occasioned by my own
death. There are some things far worse than dying. (This might be true,
especially in the case of my enemies poorer and less powerful representatives,
who are usually far less culpable than their leaders for there being a conflict
in the first place)
While an individual may sometimes make decisions based on such an altruistic
moral calculus, as a rule tribes, states, and empires do not.
#
I’d suggest, therefore, that if one wishes to fault D.S., one has to fault her
view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, not her response to events that are
rational given her presuppositions.
#
Socrates is reported to have stated: No man willingly chooses to do evil.
Men do not wake up one day and decide that they are going to do something evil.
When I was ten or so, I stole some things from a small local store. To my mind,
what I did was not bad. My family was poor, while the family that owned the
store had lots of money. To my mind, what I was doing was if not good, at
least not bad, and certainly fair.
To be sure, there are folks suffering from mental illness who might knowingly
choose to do evil, but these have got to be pretty rare. I think, too, that
there are people who live solely in and for their appetites, and who thus do
not usually make actual choices, not at least in the full sense: they’re more
like infants or cats. Perhaps, too, there are people who deliberately deceive
themselves about their motives for doing something (such as me as a ten year
old), and who thus bear a measure of moral guilt for giving place to
self-deception. I think, though, that all three classes of people are
exceptions, that in most cases we do not willing choose to do what is evil.
Did Hitler think the killing of 6 million Jews an evil thing? Surely not. He
believed that he was doing Germany, Europe, and the human race a good. What of
UBL? Did he think it evil to bring down the WTC? Surely not. To his mind, he
was contributing to a honorable and noble endeavor. Whatever evil there might
have been in the attack, if any, it was far outweighed by the potential good
that would result: the restoration of sovereignty to Muslim peoples.
@Averroe’s Ghost:
Is you want more scandal, look me up on ratemyprofessor.com
How would you define the term “Orientalist”? I assume it means something
other than non-Muslim.
If I had a decent definition of Islamophobia, I might be willing to use it. Or is it really
just the opposite of Islamophilia?
For now, I’ll stick with terms like ‘bigot’ or ‘racist’. I just don’t think half-disguised accusations of blasphemy work for the U.S.
While the poll numbers on U.S. perceptions of Muslims are not good, it should not be forgotten that the poll numbers for Muslim perceptions of the U.S. are not a whole lot different. 25% perhaps as high as 35% on overall approval.
I don’t believe that the proposition “U.S. is Islamophobic” is a sufficient explanation, for
either sets of poll numbers.
What do you find objectionable about my website?
Are you at johnlamoreaux.org?
One of my syllabi?
The Arabic texts?
The Latin texts?
The Bin Baz fatwa?
The Dremali fatwa?
(Is it Dremali? Don’t like the posting of the indictment?)
Sleep well. I’m off to drink coffee with Rumsfeld and make the world safe for democracy.
John
January 14th, 2011 at 8:14 am
http://pewglobal.org/files/legacy/253-7.gif
January 14th, 2011 at 9:32 am
And this proves what Bob ?
You can cut and paste !
Having read JW we knew that already
January 14th, 2011 at 9:44 am
You might want to clarify what was your point, JihadBob. We, unlike you, cannot read minds.
January 14th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Good catch JihadBob!
I still can’t figure why Lady Gaga’s a phobe….
What we got here is a failure to communicate.
What one calls it is not relevant. What one does about it might be.
The U.S. has its own prophets (sallallahu `alayhim wa-sallam),
and one of them—one who has more ears in Washington
than his president—said:
Quoth I: “Then, after Shahzad’s apprehension, we were told that he was just
another `one-off’ in the tradition of Islamist terrorists who aren’t
really Islamist terrorists at all, but distraught homeowners unable to meet
mortgage payments or victims of our prejudice (such as Maj. Nidal Hassan,
the traitor and butcher of Fort Hood).”
(That prophet for years has argued against essentializing Islam. While he doesn’t much like the direction that Arabic-speaking Islam has taken of late, he’s written with great love about Islam everywhere else, from Senegal to West Papua. He has even given Spencer a good’ole semper-fi smack-down a few times. He writes from experience, and he’s domiciled himself in just about every country of the OIC. He’s an phile, surely.)
His voice is seconded by the wisdom of the ages:
man ja`ala nafsahu `aẓman akalathu al-kilāb
And in the Lord’s own tongue: If ya act like a bone the big dog’s gonna eat ya.
–… …– . … .–. .- -..-
January 14th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Professor Lamoreaux
Firstly, you’re the only professor I know who would admire someone like Debbie Schlussel, and perhaps that’s only because you’re from Texas and, as you’ve said, grew up in a Conservative Christian family. Most of my teachers who teach history, etc would dismiss people like Schlussel, Geller and Spencer as divisive bigots at best, borderline insane at worst. Secondly, and more importantly, how is what Debbie Schlussel said about the Copts any different from what she said about the Palestinians? Quiet obvious sly, she insinuated that all six million or so Palestinians needed do die because *some* of them are terrorists, and again, she also believes that the Copts deserved to die because they aren’t slaves to Israel.
Frankly, Debbie Schlussel is indefensible, and as I’ve already mentioned, there are other things she’s done and written that would lead one to question her sanity.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/blogger-schlussel-renames-organization-after-cair-lawsuit/
Schlussel told one of her Web site followers that she registered CAIR’s name and named herself executive director “to drive the Muslims crazy.”
Now that’s Islamophobia. [Also, it’s not a valid argument to claim Islamophobia doesn’t exist by trying to obfuscate its definition. Many people do the same with the word “anti-Semitism”, and it clearly exists. As for your list: Daniel Pipes, Debbi Schlussel, Robert Spencer, Pat Condell Frank Gaffney, and the Jewish Defense League of Canada are clearly Islamophobes because they all demand that innocent Muslims be killed, discriminated against, or, in the words of Daniel Pipes, must be made to know that they are a “defeated people”. Not so sure about Lady Gaga.]
JihadBob:
You’re suffering from a severe case of epistemic closure. You might also want to see your shrink about your other personality issues, namely your anti-social tendencies and severe hypocrisy.
Or maybe you just spam wonderful (i.e. bigoted), off-topic things because you want attention. I’m actually starting to believe that.
January 14th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“Try this experiment. Do a search for “Islamophobe” and set a timer for five minutes. See how many Islamophobe individuals, groups, and even ideas, can be cut and pasted.”
Right. Now I can see why you are a scholar. Using the mystical power of Google to deny or downplay Islamophobia. Remember when typing in “miserable failure” showed you George Bush’s website as the top result?
Whilst the word “Islamophobia” is thrown around a lot, a bit like how “antisemitism” is as well, you cannot deny it just because of that. Regardless of what it means, Islamophobia is definitely what happens at JihadWatch where commenters regularly call for the nuking of Mecca or the mass deportation of Muslims. That can be defined as the prejudice, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims. It is Islamophobia.
January 14th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“Sorry, what is claiming that Muslims are the new Jews of Europe, again?”
Nobody says that Muslims in Europe have it as bad as European Jews 70 years ago, but the same kind of drivel directed towards Jews back then is becoming increasingly common against Muslims nowadays.
Look for example at this Nazi Poster back then, about demographic degression if “superiour races” didn’t get as much offspring as “inferiour races”.
This kind of ‘demographic threat’ nonsense is currently surprisingly tolerated when referring to Muslims in Europe, don’t you think? Not even did you set up a strawman argument, you chose a very shoddy one at that.
January 14th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Dr Lamoreaux: Although we clearly disagree regarding the issue of defining Islamophobia, and such things as the treatment of non-Muslim minorities as representative of mainstream Islam, I’m happy to continue our discussion. (Clearly, your quote from Jihadwatch above regarding the Father Butrous story was for a reaosn, and not merely to show that Muslim extremists do heinous things – which none of us at Loonwatch would deny or support).
Commins work is important, although I’d recommend checking out that of Weismann (Taste of Modernity: Sufism, Salafiyya and Arabism in Late Ottoman Damascus) as it’s more recent and also gives some ver good information. My interest is in the scholarly networks which developed in the period – taking my queue from Voll and his work on Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi/Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab etc.
My interest is that even the likes of Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi – arguably the main representative of the later Damascene “Salafi” school – studied for a long time in the halaqat which were founded by ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza’iri, as did the grandson of Ibn ‘Abidin. Thus, there did not seem to be such ideological barriers there as elsewhere in the Muslim world. The same could be said for Iraq at the time – Abu al-Thana’ al-Alusi’s work is also very interesting, especially his tafsir. This can be seen in al-Qasimi’s work: he wrote not only an important text on mustalah al-hadith and the hadith sciences in general, tafsir and fatawa, but also a history of the artists and craftsmen of Damascus. Many of his works are widely sourced. For instance, he cites Raghib al-Din al-Isfahani multiple times – something no “Salafi” would even consider permissible these days due to the latter’s standing in the Sufi tradition!
Unfortunately I have not yet gone to Damascus to scour the libraries for related texts, although am hoping to do so in the near future. I would recommend checking out archive.org, al-mostafa.info and also some of the Arabic online discussion forums; it’s surprising how many resources are out there in actual fact, especially if you have the titles.
January 14th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslims-feel-like-jews-of-europe-859978.html
January 14th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Nice link Bob. It seems that you’re finally realizing that Islamophobia (prejudice against Muslims) exists, and that you’re an anti-Muslim bigot.
“I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe,” he said. “I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.
January 14th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
http://www.gallup.com/press/104209/who-speaks-islam-what-billion-muslims-really-think.aspx
January 14th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Looks like JihadBob just pulled that from Google without reading. Loon fail.
January 14th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
I’d also recommend, for those who haven’t already read it, the excellent study Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy as an addition to any book list on the topic.
January 14th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Narrated ‘Abdullah: As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, “O Lord! Forgive my people for they do not know.”
[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 63]
قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ كَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَحْكِي نَبِيًّا مِنْ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ ضَرَبَهُ قَوْمُهُ فَأَدْمَوْهُ فَهُوَ يَمْسَحُ الدَّمَ عَنْ وَجْهِهِ وَيَقُولُ رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لِقَوْمِي فَإِنَّهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
January 14th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
@Dawood
That is an excellent book.
January 15th, 2011 at 6:30 am
so according to spencers interpretation of Quran in the name of al qaeda, the verses regarding destruction of churches were revealed regarding churches that never existed ?
January 15th, 2011 at 7:07 am
According to Jalalyn:
….. Were it not for God’s causing some people (ba‘dahum, ‘some’, substitutes for al-nāsa, ‘people’) to drive back others, destruction would have befallen (read la-huddimat to emphasise a great number [of destructions]; or read la-hudimat) the monasteries, (sawāmi‘) is for monks, and churches, (kanā’is) are for Christians, and synagogues, (salawāt) is the Hebrew term for Jewish houses of worship (kanā’is), and mosques, (masājid) are for Muslims, in which, that is, in which mentioned places, God’s Name is mentioned greatly, and with such destruction acts of worship cease….
According to tafsir ibn Abbas:
….if it had not been for this (cloisters) the cloisters of monks (and churches) of the Jews (and oratories) the Magians’ houses of fire, because these were safe from Muslims (and mosques) of the Muslims, (wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned) repeating the formulas: “Allah is the greatest” and “there is no deity except Allah”, (would assuredly have been pulled down….
According to Ibn Kathir:
…..(Sawami` surely have been pulled down) means the small temples used by monks. This was the view of Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Abu Al-`Aliyah, `Ikrimah, Ad-Dahhak and others. Qatadah said, “This refers to the places of worship of the Sabians;” according to another report, he said, “The Sawami` of the Zoroastrians.” Muqatil bin Hayyan said, “These are houses along the roads.”
(Biya`.) These are larger than the Sawami` and accommodate more worshippers; the Christians also have these. This was the view of Abu Al-`Aliyah, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak, Ibn Sakhr, Muqatil bin Hayyan, Khusayf and others. Ibn Jubayr reported from Mujahid and others that this referred to the synagogues of the Jews which are known to them as Salut. And Allah knows best.
(Salawat) Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said, “Salawat means churches.” `Ikrimah, Ad-Dahhak and Qatadah said that it referred to the synagogues of the Jews. Abu Al-`Aliyah and others said, “Salawat refers to the places of worship of the Sabians.” Ibn Abi Najih reported that Mujahid said, “Salawat refers to places of worship of the People of the Book and of the people of Islam along the roads.” Masjids belong to the Muslims……
January 15th, 2011 at 8:53 am
No wonder some Muslims may start feeling like Jews of europe.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hd7wEyx3eSHWfePfnb-SaOtv-rCQ
January 15th, 2011 at 9:15 am
I think the people who can’t read are the ones who claimed JCL’s comments were ‘Islamophobic’ but are incapable of seeing the similarity between what he ACTUALLY said to what Muslims in Europe are claiming.
First off, JCL said that many Copts feel that they are living in a country that has similarities to a Germany before Kristallnacht.
Secondly, what Egyptian Copts have said is no different from what European Muslims have said. Neither are claiming that their situation is comparable to the Holocaust, but that they feel their social and political predicament is close to that of Jews living in a Europe before the Holocaust.
So it is indeed interesting how two or three members have whined about JCL’s comments as being ‘Islamophobic’ but have gallantly defended the Muslims who want others to literally believe they’re the new Jews of Europe.
The last point one must then consider, is if there is any substance to either of these claims. With the white-washing of Muslim bigotry on this site (this thread is a case in point) and the constant victimization of Muslims (this site is a case in point, including a link by one member already in this thread), the Muslim members seem fully convinced that Europe’s Muslims are currently going through what Europe’s Jews have previously gone through while, at the same time, any statements of Egyptian Copts suffering the same treatment as European Muslims now or European Jews of the past is met with calls of racism and, oh yeah, ‘Islamophobia’.
I’m sure that should speak volumes to JCL just as it does to a neutral observer such as myself.
@Averroe’s Ghost: re “disgusting quote”
What’s disgusting?
The fact that the brother of Fr. Butros had his tongue cut out? or that fact that I mentioned it?
My friend, if you want to understand how Copts feel these days, you’ve got to recognize that these things happen. It’s not my fault that many feel like Egypt today is like Germany on the eve of Kristallnacht.
January 15th, 2011 at 10:00 am
There’s a crucial difference you managed to miss. Kristallnacht was a state-orchestrated attack that went along without any widespread protest from the general population, a media or a condemnation of the head of state and Christian leaders. Non-Jewish Germans didn’t display a large amount of solidarity or provide themselves as shields for Jewish property.
Despite whatever tensions exist between Muslims and Christians in Egypt, there is no danger of any pogrom happening any time soon. Nor are European Muslims in any such danger either. But it is definitely less likely to find open hostility on the level of media and politics towards Copts in Egypt that it is against Muslims in Europe.
I’ve lived in both places long enough, I know what I’m talking about.
January 15th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Non-Jewish Germans didn’t display a large amount of solidarity or provide themselves as shields for Jewish property.
Agreed. Any comparison to Muslims in Europe today to Jews of Europe seventy years ago is ABSURD.
Thank you for being the first to express your disapproval to any type of comparison.
Kristallnacht was a state-orchestrated attack that went along without any widespread protest from the general population
I guess you must have missed the part that the comparison to Copts was that they were on the EVE of a Kristallnacht.
Funny how that can by one like that.
there is no danger of any pogrom happening any time soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosheh_massacre
But it is definitely less likely to find open hostility on the level of media and politics towards Copts in Egypt that it is against Muslims in Europe.
And yet there are allegations that Egyptian Copts are stockpiling Israeli weapons in their monasteries and churches. And a suicide bomber has already detonated himself outside a Copt service.
And of course, it’s the attacks and discrimination against Copts that we never hear about. A suicide bombing is a rarity, violence and hatred directed towards Egyptian Christians is a daily event.
I’ve lived in both places long enough, I know what I’m talking about.
Really? I live in the West and I don’t think you or any of the other loons here do.
But I’m glad you’re here to tell us everything is ‘ok’ in Egypt. Nothing to worry about over there. Nothing to see, just move along (and if you poke around too much, as JCL has done, you might just be an Islamophobe).
January 15th, 2011 at 11:07 am
To call yourself a ‘neutral observer’ is an insult bob, you are far from neutral. All that I and others have said is that the similarities between the treatment of Muslims and the treatment of Jews in the run up to Hitler’s final situation is starkly similar and is cause for concern. The other thing that is being said is that it is dumb to suggest what is happening in a country based on a handful of headlines as you seem to enjoy doing (case point this tread where a number of your ‘contributions’ were simply just links to news stories). Yes, shite happens as the phrase goes, no denying that at all, but at the same time there is less shite that shite diggers and spreaders like you try to make out, in fact there is a lot of anti-shite such as the story that this article was about which you try to bury with your dug up shite. Rational thinking is needed here lest we plow into another ‘final solution’ on any side, again something that is a thankfully only a far but still present possibility.
January 15th, 2011 at 11:50 am
@Jihadbob and others: re comparison of Egypt to Germany:
Sorry.
(I am suffering a bit of latency,
My posts need to be approved, which means by the time you read this I’m already a full page behind the conversation. Thus, I’m apologizing in advance for an act I’ve not yet committed. Make sense?)
I want to make sure that what I said is understood.
I’d kindly ask that you reread the sentence. The context of the thread will
help. I compared Egypt today to _Germany_ in early 1933, not to the Nazi party itself.
Note also that I was very specific. I said _early_ 1933. In the original post I
also italicized the word ‘early’.
By 1933 Germany still
had no way to know what was happening, only that something was wrong. Still,
there was enough nastiness in the air and factional violence on the streets, that
some who had money and foresight figured it might be time to get out of
Germany. The National Socialist Party was by this point on its way to
single-party rule, but had not yet reached that point: the Communists could
still put up a good fight and certainly did, and von Hindenburg was still the
chancellor and would be until his death in late 1934. In additional to other
similar groups, the para-military Sturm Abteilung had been formed, banned, and
then legalized again. Perhaps most importantly,
by late February the Reichstag burnt.
No one was
certain as to the cause, though every person thought they knew the real culprit.
Accusations flew. Tensions grew. And by the end of March, that fire was used
to help pass the Enabling Bill, which was the first real mark that Germany
was undergoing a massive change, and not for the better (as some also
thought at the time).
The Enabling Bill was the legal justification needed for the Nazis to take over
the trade unions, ban and imprison the Communist and Social Democrat Parties.
By the end of the year, there were over 100,000 political prisoners.
Many of
those who left during this first wave of emigration were Jews. It was the
hatred in the air and lack of safety which were the main motivation for
leaving.
(To keep this in historical perspective, Germany did not swallow up its first
neighbor until March 1936. The Brits were still thinking it might be possible
to work with Hitler, until Sept 1938. Crystal Night was in November 1938. It was
not until May 1940 that Germany invaded France and Belgium. That is, a full seven
years later. And the final solution was not even in sight yet.)
Here’s the very _beginning_ of a timeline for the ENTIRE Second
World War, from historyplace.com —
========
Jump to: 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
1933
January 30, 1933 – Adolf Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany…
February 22, 1933 – 40,000 SA and SS men are sworn in as auxiliary police.
February 27, 1933 – Nazis burn Reichstag building to create crisis atmosphere.
February 28, 1933 – Emergency powers granted to Hitler….
==========
Again, I was being extremely careful and deliberate with my choice of date for the
comparison. Something nasty was in the air by early 1933,
but you couldn’t quite put your
finger on it. There was a lack of public order, with independent militias
being formed and bringing still more chaos to the street. There was repression of
the ruling party’s opponents.
One can well imagine the Muslim Brotherhood to
be like the Communist Party.
People with money, especially minorities, are
seeking to emigrate.
I think the comparison works pretty well and is most fair, except that Egypt is
already a de facto one party state, so it’s kinda unfair to Germany in that respect.
It might help to compare Egypt at present with Syria.
Except for the single party, Syria simply
does not have that early 1933 feel. My Christian friends in Syria are extremely proud
of their country, though they don’t always agree with what it does. They are also
very happy to be living in a safe and secure environment, though most are
not happy about the economic corruption. Most of the older generation well
remembers a time when they did not have this stability.
My friends are mostly
Syrian Orthodox (the Suryani). They are almost all from what is now southern Turkey.
In the chaos at the end of the 1st WW, they lost almost 75% of their small community.
You can well imagine, I hope, that the contrast with modern Syria is both vivid and real.
Sure they’re mostly poor, but so is everyone else. So that does not much bother them.
As for me, I love spending time in Syria, in part
because one does not have to worry about chaos, riots/protests, crime, etc. I can’t
always say the same about Egypt. One hour in Cairo and my brain hurts.
Indeed, if not for the Egyptian people I’d have little reason to visit.
I’ll tell you
what, though! If I were to be stripped naked, beaten senseless, and dumped on
the side of a road, I much rather that happen in Egypt than in Texas or in
Saudi. At least I could be sure of help, even from the poorest.
The other great thing about my Egyptian friends: no one thinks twice about
spending ten hours in a cafe arguing some one, single point, whether that point be
of utmost significance or utter insignificance.
They love ideas like no one else
I’ve ever met. And the Salafis are the best of lovers! (That somehow
just does not sound the way I mean it.)
(If only I could convince the foolish ahl al-Salaf that they are
pronouncing their jim incorrectly.)
Missa est
John
January 15th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Don’t get me wrong. The salafis are just plain bonkers on some things.
Like Jihad. They have the divine right and duty, they say,
to implement every single law in the
old books, except they can’t do it at the moment.
Not yet. Gotta get a caliph first. Then
they’re gonna conquer the world. Just you wait.
I think we can all be thankful
that the caliph thing is not working out.
On the plus side, they did figure out that the good-old-fashioned Jihad
was waged by armies, not by street gangs.
I’m told there are also living and breathing jihadi-salafis, who found a passage
in some fiqh book about the hudud and what to do when the ruler won’t implement it.
They put that next to a passage about how it’s permitted for the army to go forth
before the ruler or his naib arrives and a passage about how it’s permitted to fight
if the ruler/naib is passed out in his tent from too much wine.
“QED.” They shout. “Where’s my AK? I gonna go kill the guy across the street. I can’t see his ankles. Kafir! Kafir! Where’s my AK!?”
I don’t think I ever actually met one.
So perhaps there’s more than three passages to their proof.
January 15th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
What part of Allahu Asghar was too hard to understand JihadBob?
January 15th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“I’d kindly ask that you reread the sentence. The context of the thread will
help. I compared Egypt today to _Germany_ in early 1933, not to the Nazi party itself. Note also that I was very specific. I said _early_ 1933. In the original post Ialso italicized the word ‘early’.”
Hmm. It really just seemed like another Islamophobe rant about “Islamo-nazism” or “Islamofascism”, but now you explain it, it’s not a comparison of present-day Egypt and Nazism but a comparison to the atmosphere of hate in 1933. Perhaps you’re right, but as the Sphinx pointed out, no one in Germany would turn up as a human shield at a synagogue. It’s different also because of the widespread condemnation of the attack by Muslim leaders in Egypt and that this attack was not conducted by the State but other acts like Kristallnacht were. Furthermore, I can’t imagine a Jew being the Foreign Minister of Germany in 1933 in the way that Boutros Boutros-Ghali became the Foreign Minister of Egypt until 1991.
I don’t think Egypt is quite ‘there’ and certainly hope it doesn’t get to that stage.
January 15th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@Cynic,
JihadBob doesn’t know Arabic just like Spencer, so it might be too hard to understand.
January 15th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I see that Bob is still trying to claim that Professor Lamoreaux’s comments were seen as offensive because of his mention of a Coptic preacher whose tongue was cut off. However, as I’ve shown, and as others have reiterated, that isn’t the case.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/spencer-distorts-egyptian-society-spreads-interfaith-bigotry/#comment-50245
JihadBob still doesn’t get the whole “Allah Asghar” thing. What a loon ignoramus.
January 15th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
JihadBob:
Agreed. Any comparison to Muslims in Europe today to Jews of Europe seventy years ago is ABSURD.
Thank you for being the first to express your disapproval to any type of comparison.
For whatever reason, you cut and pasted something The Sphinx said about the absurdity of comparing modern Egypt to Germany in 1933, and claimed that he was agreeing with you on the subject of comparing early twentieth century European Jews to modern European Muslims. Your dishonesty aside, no one is saying that Muslims in Europe are going to experience anything even remotely equivalent to the Holocaust; they’re simply saying that anti-Muslim bigotry is acceptable in Europe and America, just as anti-Semitism used to acceptable and widespread in Christian Europe. Secondly, although we agree that there is tension between Copts and Muslims in Egypt, there will obviously be no pogrom against Christians in Egypt anytime soon. It’s quite ridiculous to suggest such considering the facts: Egypt’s religious institutions, government, media, and cultural icons have all condemned the attack. Apart from those examples, thousands of Muslims have also risked their lives to show people like Bob that not all Muslims are evil (although their actions were probably in vain because there is nothing a Muslim do other than die or become Christian to satisfy Bob’s insatiable hatred). Again, there is simply no equivalent to between what was happening in Germany in 1933 to what’s happening in Egypt today, and even you admit this in the following comment.
“Secondly, what Egyptian Copts have said is no different from what European Muslims have said. Neither are claiming that their situation is comparable to the Holocaust, but that they feel their social and political predicament is close to that of Jews living in a Europe before the Holocaust.”
Not surprisingly, you began to contradict yourself in your later post, and actually seemed to assert that a pogrom against the Copts would occur “soon”.
Really? I live in the West and I don’t think you or any of the other loons here do.
You wouldn’t know because you probably spend most of in your time in your parent’s basement surfing hate sites. Anyways, The Sphinx brings up a good point: we’ve been to Muslim-majority countries and you haven’t, and probably never will (due to an irrational fear, i.e. Islamophobia). I’ve been to one quite recently, and Jack Cope, Dawood, The Sphinx and probably others have too. You’re view of Muslims is severely warped because your sole source of information is, again, hate sites; you’ve never ventured out into the real world.
January 15th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Oh, and let’s not forget this doozie.
“…a neutral observer such as myself.”
A “neutral observer”? Ha! You’re claim is laughable; in fact, you’re so extreme that you think FOX news has a pro-Muslim bias. And it doesn’t stop there. As I’ve mentioned, you have referred to Muslims as “horrible people” and have claimed that most of them are fascists. You’ve also defended celebrating the deaths of innocent Muslims, not just once, but several times. Perhaps MP11 can sum up your “neutrality” best.
http://spencerwatch.com/2010/11/01/jihadwatch-afraid-to-debate-loonwatch/#comment-1730
You’ve also defended violence against Muslims, even to the point of denying the Bosnian genocide—although, as we both remember, that was a complete failure.
January 15th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“Agreed. Any comparison to Muslims in Europe today to Jews of Europe seventy years ago is ABSURD.”
Yet I’ve shown you evidence that some people in Europe haven’t learned from the grave mistakes of their grandfathers and great grandfathers 70 years ago. Why else would a German politician and central bank executive publish a book on Muslim immigrants that goes along the same line of reasoning as a Nazi poster I referred to earlier? Or why would the former Prime Minister of Bavaria make an open request to universities and students to spy on the Muslim students? (Luckily, the universities flipped him off)
And by the way, Wikipedia defines a pogrom as “a form of violent riot, a mob attack, either approved or condoned by government or military authorities, directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious, or other, and characterized by killings and destruction of their homes and properties, businesses, and religious centres.”
While the police in Egypt is a highly corrupt organization, operating under despotic rule, and the Kosheh massacres are truly
Under current circumstances, you will never get the situation of the government sending out militias to destroy Christian churches, ransack Christian shops and burn down Christian homes in Egypt while the general population just stands by idly and watches. Never. Our faith doesn’t allow it, and the huge solidarity from the government and the people towards Christians after the events at Alexandria should’ve taught even the most stubborn Bob that another Kristallnacht would never happen in Egypt any time soon.
“And yet there are allegations that Egyptian Copts are stockpiling Israeli weapons in their monasteries and churches. And a suicide bomber has already detonated himself outside a Copt service.”
If you had learned how to read, I was talking about hostility by politicians and the media. The suicide bomber was hardly a journalist or a politician, was he?
Funny how that can pass by one like that.
“And of course, it’s the attacks and discrimination against Copts that we never hear about. A suicide bombing is a rarity, violence and hatred directed towards Egyptian Christians is a daily event.”
In a country of around 70 Million Muslims, you’re bound to find some of them who hate Christians and are violent towards them. But if it’s such a daily event, tell me why I’ve never witnessed any violence or hatred myself against Christians in the 15 years I’ve lived in Cairo? I actually surveyed about 10 of my (many more) Christian friends and asked them whether they had witnessed any kind of discrimination or knew of anyone amongst their friends and family who did – and believe me, Christians in Egypt know loads of other Christians. They all said no, certainly not. Except this one guy who was bullied by his Basketball coach. But even he said that any rumours of Christians generally living in fear of their lives in Egypt are rubbish.
“Really? I live in the West and I don’t think you or any of the other loons here do.”
Nice to know your sensationalist and one-sided media exposure to Egypt is worth more than a decade and a half of living in Cairo.
“But I’m glad you’re here to tell us everything is ‘ok’ in Egypt. Nothing to worry about over there. Nothing to see, just move along (and if you poke around too much, as JCL has done, you might just be an Islamophobe).”
Really Bob, when will you switch from a black-and-white worldview to a one with greyscale? Just because I say it’s absurd that Kristallnacht 2.0 will happen in Egypt doesn’t mean that there haven’t been terrible crimes against Copts in the past (or will be in the future). But yes, things are generally rather ok, and you’ve seen but decided to ignore a very vibrant feeling of unity throughout the Egyptian population today.
Besides, why are you pointing fingers when you consistently deny that any irrational hatred against Muslims exists in America despite repeated incidents showing the opposite?
That you still insist on smearing all Egyptian Muslims with the same brush, regardless of how strongly they disapprove of any encroachment on Christian lives and their property, shows what kind of person you are. You wouldn’t give half a crap about Copts – after all, they hate Israeli politics too – if there wasn’t any good ole’ Mooselimb-bashing involved..
January 15th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Sorry, I forgot to finish one paragraph:
While the police in Egypt is a highly corrupt organization, operating under despotic rule, and the Kosheh massacres are truly a stain on our national identity, I still stand by my statement.
January 15th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
(And my long comment is awaiting moderation for containing a few links, give it a bit)
January 15th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Perhaps you’re right, but as the Sphinx pointed out, no one in Germany would turn up as a human shield at a synagogue.
No one in Germany blew themselves up outside a synagogue.
I don’t think Egypt is quite ‘there’ and certainly hope it doesn’t get to that stage.
Sure it is. But unlike Germany, it’s the government that prevents the screws from tightening any more on the Christian population. That’s why the Christians of the Muslim world are so supportive of secular dictatorships, since they’re the only ones from keeping the mullahs and masses from having their way.
Your dishonesty aside, no one is saying that Muslims in Europe are going to experience anything even remotely equivalent to the Holocaust
Ok, so the posts on this site predicting a time when Muslims are rounded up by Western governments were never written.
Hmmmm, yeah.
You’re view of Muslims is severely warped because your sole source of information is, again, hate sites; you’ve never ventured out into the real world.
My view seems pretty accurate to me.
I’ll refer you to the post where I correctly said a suicide bombing attack against a Coptic religious service was only a matter of time.
If my views seem warped to you, perhaps it’s because they’re accurate and the people I base my views on are the ones who are warped ?
January 15th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“No one in Germany blew themselves up outside a synagogue.”
“Sure it is. But unlike Germany, it’s the government that prevents the screws from tightening any more on the Christian population. That’s why the Christians of the Muslim world are so supportive of secular dictatorships, since they’re the only ones from keeping the mullahs and masses from having their way.”
“Ok, so the posts on this site predicting a time when Muslims are rounded up by Western governments were never written.”
“My view seems pretty accurate to me.”
“I’ll refer you to the post where I correctly said a suicide bombing attack against a Coptic religious service was only a matter of time.”
“If my views seem warped to you, perhaps it’s because they’re accurate and the people I base my views on are the ones who are warped ?”
Kindly review your rantings above JahilBob^
Hear that? Yeah that’s the sound of your neutral observer claim being laughed at by 1.57 billion people.
Allahu A’lam
January 15th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
“No one in Germany blew themselves up outside a synagogue.”
What’s your point? Is Egypt now worse than Nazi Germany?
“But unlike Germany, it’s the government that prevents the screws from tightening any more on the Christian population. That’s why the Christians of the Muslim world are so supportive of secular dictatorships, …
Which will it be Bob, the government doing too little to protect Christians and their property – an opinion you’ve relied on while quoting the Kosheh massacre – , or the government being the sole reason Christians are able to live in Egypt?
Am I to conclude that you support dictatorships in the Middle East?
… since they’re the only ones from keeping the mullahs and masses from having their way.”
To illustrate the magnitude of your ignorance: There is simply no such thing as a “Mullah” in Egypt.
And the masses? Do I have to remind you – for the umpteenth f***ing time – that the masses have expressed outrage at the attack on the Church and masses of Muslims have turned up to protect Christians with their own bodies?
Yeah, they sure had their way with the Copts alright…
“My view seems pretty accurate to me.”
How’s the solitude?
“If my views seem warped to you, perhaps it’s because they’re accurate and the people I base my views on are the ones who are warped ?”
No, it’s because you – as shown in this very comment – flip-flop between mutually exclusive talking points, fail in basic reading comprehension, and show an utmost resistance in acknowledging very basic facts presented to you several times. In short: You’re a sheer nuisance to deal with.
January 15th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
“No one in Germany blew themselves up outside a synagogue”
Of course not! Suicide bombings are an evil Mooslim thing….
The ‘civilised’ Europeans had better ways to treat the vulnerable minorities that had dared to venture within their borders. When Jews were being persecuted, where were the Germans? At Hitler’s rallies. By the time the “moderate” Germans realised what was going on it was too late, they no longer could speak out against it. The Nazi party had been democratically elected.
Your point is useless. A few Germans could have still turned up at synagogues as they were being burnt or could have stood in the way as civilised Westerners shattered their windows. You could have even made a point about the Germans that died protecting and hiding Jews from the Nazis. But instead you just wanted to make a stupid point about suicide bombings and imply with your statement that the suicide bombing on a Church was far worse than what the German Nazis did to synagogues and millions of Jews. Yes, you implied that.
January 15th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Which will it be Bob, the government doing too little to protect Christians and their property – an opinion you’ve relied on while quoting the Kosheh massacre – , or the government being the sole reason Christians are able to live in Egypt?
It’s obviously a delicate tight rope.
I mean, the government (especially regional/local government) is made up of ordinary Egyptians.
Clearly the government officially discriminates based on religion. But, every Christian in the Muslim world knows that the current quasi-secular tin pot dictatorships they currently have are light years better than the governments that could be formed if there is a regime change.
Am I to conclude that you support dictatorships in the Middle East?
Well, GWB didn’t. Then look what happened.
I personally feel that when there’s a social equilibrium in favor of the repressive laws of Sharia, populations who are ready to riot at the drop of a Koran and solid majorities who heart OBL and believe Mossad did 9/11, it’s time for a little reality check that if these same masses got in power, the current situation would be worse by an order of magnitude.
Imagine if the Pakistan or Egypt had their own revolutions? I’d certainly not want to be any where near any of those two countries if those events were to unfold.
To illustrate the magnitude of your ignorance: There is simply no such thing as a “Mullah” in Egypt.
Thanks for that fact, but you’ve heard of an expression, right?
that the masses have expressed outrage at the attack on the Church and masses of Muslims have turned up to protect Christians with their own bodies?
Suuuuuure. And I’m sure the laws that discriminate against Christians have no popular support whatsoever. Mean old secular Mubarak does it so the population doesn’t like him too much.
Of course not! Suicide bombings are an evil Mooslim thing….
Suicide bombing is qualitatively different from many other forms of terrorism. There’s no doubt in my mind that it takes a village to raise a suicide bomber.
None of these people who blow themselves up were raised in a vacuum. Generations of violent rhetoric, bigotry, hatred, militancy and religious fanaticism are the fruits of the suicide bomber.
To think otherwise would be totally irrational.
January 15th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
My view seems pretty accurate to me.
Yet you still couldn’t find even one flaw with Greeneye’s article, despite your initial attempt at deliberately misreading his words. What does that tell you? That you’re impervious to facts because they don’t fit your bigoted, preconceived notions that you desperately want to believe in?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/spencer-distorts-egyptian-society-spreads-interfaith-bigotry/#comment-49550
I’ll refer you to the post where I correctly said a suicide bombing attack against a Coptic religious service was only a matter of time.
The Sphinx said that an attack against a mosque in the West was only a matter of time, and it turned out he was correct. Anyone could’ve predicted that, considering the current relations between Muslims and ‘Judeo-Christians’ that people like Spencer are perpetuating. I’ll predict that the state of Israel will kill or displace hundreds of Palestinians in the future, as well as steal their land. [Note that the civilized, Western government of Israel *actually* does what terrorists in Egypt seek to do, unlike the majority of the Egyptian people and Mubarak’s government.]
If my views seem warped to you, perhaps it’s because they’re accurate and the people I base my views on are the ones who are warped?
Sadly, I’ll consider this progress in your case. Thanks for admitting that Spencer is a warped individual.
January 15th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
JihadBob…
Let us not forget, when comparing the Jewish atrocities in 30s Germany to what happened in Egypt…
The atrocities in Germany were ‘state sponsered’, funded, supported, encouraged and executed by the Nazi regime.
The German used its police against those who stood up against the Nazi treatment of the Jews, and used its power to criminalize helping the oppressed by German citizens who opposed the oppression. Many non Jewish people who were brave enough to stand for the right suffered the same fate as the Jewish people themselves…same camps, same death.
So, when you even attempt to link the attacks on the Copic people in Egypt to the Nazi treatment of European Jews, it is not even in the least comparable.
JihadBob…another thing
Sometimes what is ‘popular’ in a society isnt right. Sometimes the whole society has to in retrospect hang it’s head in shame when they think about the evil mob mentality that brought them to insanity. When the world looks back on the horror we have subjected ourselves to, we hold up as heros those who tried to say…YOU ARE WRONG.
There are many known and unknown who stood up against the Nazi regime. Some in big ways, and some in little ways. However for every person that was saved from an underserved fate, there is a hero in thier life, and in the ultimate judgement, a mark in thier favor.
I once saw a picture of a nicely dressed White woman screaming at a small Black child in pigtails because the child wanted to attend school during the US struggle for civil rights. No matter Bob if the White woman was nice, a good church going person, a prosperous person….this picture is her legacy. Whether we know her name or not, doesnt matter…but she has forever poisoned her family legacy.
In the time when she was doing this…it was the popular thing to do. It was ‘state sponsered’. It was condoned, funded, encouraged, and exceuted by well meaning people who felt the need to ‘protect themselves’ from ‘the other’…those who wanted to destroy thier way of life by calling for equality and equatability in society.
Today…as we have prospered far beyond the ugliness of this era, the woman, and her act is a shameful part of the resistance to progress in humanity.
What will be your legacy JihadBob?
January 15th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
“Imagine if the Pakistan or Egypt had their own revolutions? I’d certainly not want to be any where near any of those two countries if those events were to unfold.”
Seeing how you have never even set foot in said countries, you wouldn’t appreciate how offended regular Egyptians would feel at you suggesting they should be happy with what they’re in.
“Suuuuuure.”
What?? It happened, didn’t it? Or is it insignificant because you dug up the talking point:
“And I’m sure the laws that discriminate against Christians have no popular support whatsoever. Mean old secular Mubarak does it so the population doesn’t like him too much.”
Well shoddy try, again. Mubarak and his band of toadies have no respect for the dignity of Egypt’s population and are only after protecting their own power and benefit. They are completely detached from the lives of regular Egyptians and will suffer a terrible downfall, as every tyranny has.
And for your information, the general sentiment is against discriminatory laws against Christians, like it or not. Voices expressing this have been louder now than ever. No use sweeping that under the rug.
“Suicide bombing is qualitatively different from many other forms of terrorism.”
It kills people. Other forms of terrorism kill people. The qualitative difference is only in your head.
“None of these people who blow themselves up were raised in a vacuum. Generations of violent rhetoric, bigotry, hatred, militancy and religious fanaticism are the fruits of the suicide bomber.
To think otherwise would be totally irrational.”
Really? Well how about war and occupation as a motivation? Read this through.
Key quotes from the article that tear your claim up:
“Unlike many other Sunnis in Fallujah, Marwan had little love for Saddam’s Sunni-led regime. Yet once the dictator fell, he turned against the Americans. “We expected them to bring Saddam down and then leave,” he says. “But they stayed and stayed.” Insurgents approached disaffected Fallujis like Marwan and urged them to join the resistance against the Americans.”
(…)
Like other Iraqis who have joined extremist religious groups during the insurgency, Marwan severed connections with his family when he joined up. He says he will call them once before his suicide mission to say goodbye. Even though one of his brothers fights for another insurgent group and other siblings help the rebels with money and shelter, he says they all believe he has gone too far. “My family are not happy with my choice,” he says. “But they know they can’t change my path.”
(…)
Marwan says he doesn’t think about his legacy or how others might regard him when he is gone. Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, Iraq’s self-immolating terrorists are not celebrated and memorialized by family and friends.
(…)
Totally irrational indeed.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
“Am I to conclude that you support dictatorships in the Middle East?
Well, GWB didn’t. Then look what happened.”
Ha! He supported Musharraf and King Abdullah as well as the various other dictators in the region. He only took down Saddam because he had imaginary WMDs (which we all know are far more terrifying than real WMDs — what can I say? War is deceit
)
“There’s no doubt in my mind that it takes a village to raise a suicide bomber.”
Absolutely. A whole village angry at the occupation of their land and oppression of their people or at least what they think is ‘oppression’. Al-Qaeda, Jundallah (Sunni Islamist Theocracy!), Tamil Tigers, Kamikaze pilots…
But I agree, it’s rarely something one plans on their own.
“Generations of violent rhetoric, bigotry, hatred, militancy and religious fanaticism are the fruits of the suicide bomber.”
Yes! Absolutely. Almost no objections here. It’s generations of extremist and violent thinking in the garb of religious piety. Spencer on the other hand believes it’s the Quran alone that is violent enough to inspire a Muslim to blow himself up as soon as he finishes it. Of course it isn’t the Quran or Islam itself, but the extremists within our religion that propose to people that suicide bombing is the only solution and often this involves making them guilty of their sins and making them think that they can only redeem themselves by killing people. And to do this they misuse the Quran to justify to the younglings who themselves have little idea of the Quran that suicide bombings are right. One then wonders if it truly is so right and is a commandment from God then why are Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri not taking part.
Jihadbob makes sense for once. But you must also understand the part that the occupation of Muslims lands is a big reason that you cannot deny. That is the reason for the violent rhetoric, bigotry, hatred and militancy in the first place.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Well shoddy try, again. Mubarak and his band of toadies have no respect for the dignity of Egypt’s population and are only after protecting their own power and benefit. They are completely detached from the lives of regular Egyptians and will suffer a terrible downfall, as every tyranny has.
Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
No, really. Most Egyptians want to live in complete equality with their Christian neighbors. They also support free speech and a Jeffersonian Democracy.
And for your information, the general sentiment is against discriminatory laws against Christians
How have you come to that conclusion?
It kills people. Other forms of terrorism kill people. The qualitative difference is only in your head.
Of course it’s qualitatively different from other forms of terrorism. Only the most devoted (read: fanatical) to the cause would ever blow themselves up.
When you have individuals whose achievement in life is to self detonate amongst Christian or Shia worshipers, that speaks volumes to the type of fanatic the bomber was.
Really? Well how about war and occupation as a motivation? Read this through.
We’re talking about someone who blew his or herself up at an Egyptian church. Please don’t try to change the subject.
As with this suicide bombing and all the other suicide bombings, this is simply a matter of the chickens coming home to roost.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Ha! He supported Musharraf and King Abdullah as well as the various other dictators in the region. He only took down Saddam because he had imaginary WMDs (which we all know are far more terrifying than real WMDs — what can I say? War is deceit
Unfortunately, he supported elections in the Palestinian territories in the belief that the Palestinians would elect moderates.
They ended up voting for a group whose claim to fame was blowing up ice cream parlors.
Absolutely. A whole village angry at the occupation of their land and oppression of their people or at least what they think is ‘oppression’. Al-Qaeda, Jundallah (Sunni Islamist Theocracy!), Tamil Tigers, Kamikaze pilots…
Everyone has their grievances.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
I personally feel that when there’s a social equilibrium in favor of the repressive laws of Sharia, populations who are ready to riot at the drop of a Koran and solid majorities who heart OBL and believe Mossad did 9/11, it’s time for a little reality check that if these same masses got in power, the current situation would be worse by an order of magnitude.
First of all, most Muslims, perhaps over 99.9% of them, don’t riot when the Koran gets desecrated. Secondly, your claim that “solid majorities” support Bin Laden is a complete fantasy, as countless polls have shown.
“Backing for al-Qaida, whose senior leaders are believed to be hiding along the Pakistani-Afghan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23094334/ns/world_news-terrorism/
Not exactly a “solid majority”, eh Bob? And note that this is Pakistan, one of the more impoverished countries in the Muslim world. Imagine the level of support he receives in say… Morocco, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, or even Egypt. Now, you can either admit that you lied or were ignorant—it’s your choice.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Nice that you’ve avoided all of the other questions raised by Mosizzle about Spencer’s linking of the Qur’an and the Islamic tradition to terrorism, JihadBob.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
“No, really. Most Egyptians want to live in complete equality with their Christian neighbors. They also support free speech and a Jeffersonian Democracy.”
Are you being sarcastic or plain silly? Just about every Egyptian I know wants to live in equality and harmony with their Christian neighbours, and detest the kind of “democracy” our beloved government has bestowed upon us. Fail.
“And for your information, the general sentiment is against discriminatory laws against Christians”
How have you come to that conclusion?
Because contrary to you, I actually speak to people about it. Plus, I’ve seen lots and lots of Facebook posts on the incident. The general sentiment is against discrimination against Christians, plain and simple.
“Of course it’s qualitatively different from other forms of terrorism. Only the most devoted (read: fanatical) to the cause would ever blow themselves up.
When you have individuals whose achievement in life is to self detonate amongst Christian or Shia worshipers, that speaks volumes to the type of fanatic the bomber was.”
Logical fallacy. Just because it only takes a fanatic to blow oneself up in a terror attack doesn’t mean that other terrorists can’t be fanatics.
Or are you claiming that people who detonate bombs from a distance or shoot at crowds of people out of political reasons are rather lax in their ideological conviction?
Oh, while we’re at it: Have you ever watched “Independence day”? That guy that flew into the mothership? Suicide bomber by definition, but you wouldn’t call him a fanatic.
“We’re talking about someone who blew his or herself up at an Egyptian church. Please don’t try to change the subject.”
HOOT!! PLEASE DON’T TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!! Listen up everybody, copy and paste this sentence every time Bob shifts the goal posts (which occurs very often, as you may know).
And I wasn’t changing the subject. You were talking about all suicide bombers and how it would be irrational to think they’re not being egged on by whatever insanity goes on in their “villages”. I showed you a classical case where the opposite was true. Hence, you were wrong.
And the loon fails again…
January 15th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
@Dawood: Hit him with his new catch-words: “Please don’t try to change the subject”
January 15th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
No, really. Most Egyptians want to live in complete equality with their Christian neighbors. They also support free speech and a Jeffersonian Democracy.
That’s not even the point. You’re basically saying that most Egyptian Muslims want a government that would instigate a pogrom against Coptic Egyptians. Do you any proof of this, ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence contradicting your assertion? The thousands of Muslims who gathered to defend Christians, as well as the Egyptian media, government, religious and cultural icons say otherwise.
PS: I’ll be waiting for you to support your claim that a solid majority of Muslims love Bin Laden. Also, you still haven’t found one flaw with the article, despite your deliberate misreading of Greeneye’s words.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
“Unfortunately, he supported elections in the Palestinian territories in the belief that the Palestinians would elect moderates.
They ended up voting for a group whose claim to fame was blowing up ice cream parlors.”
That would be classified as supporting other dictators in the region, as many of Hamas’s actions have been dictator-like. Obviously you couldn’t deny that he has supported dictators, which would mean admitting you were wrong, so you tried to throw something in about Palestinians.nJust answer me: has George Bush supported dictators?
“Everyone has their grievances.”
Yes. Many of these grievances have led people, including Americans and Israelis, to launch suicide attacks (not necessarily bombings) against civilians. Just admit that certain excessive actions by freedom loving America such as supporting freedom hating dictators might have something to do with why suicide bombers are soooo angry at America. After all, suicide bombers didn’t just emerge from a cave holding a Quran in one hand and a sword in the other. A scenario which orientalist Bernard Lewis (who for the most part is on your side) says is technically impossible as no pious Muslim would hold the Quran in his left hand and most Muslims (pretty much all extremists) are right handed so holding the sword in their left hand is a bad strategy. Either they desecrate the Quran or become crappy swordsmen. Anyway, you yourself said it takes generations to create a suicide bomber not a few hours reading of the Quran, which means that the extremists who give their extreme interpretations of the Quran as well as near daily news of drone attacks, killings in Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq has a big influence on the formation of a suicide bomber.
And…please don’t try to change the subject!
January 15th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Also, “jihadists”, even those in countries not under occupation like Egypt or Pakistan, purport their struggle as defensive. Clearly, it’s not the culture of the “Muslim village” (of which Bob knows nothing about) that perpetuates these attacks; so-called Islamic terrorism is the result of several idiotic Western actions in the Muslim world, namely propping up dictatorships, creating and supporting Israeli expansionism, stealing resources, and several other quagmires originating from a mixture of ignorance and greed.
“As we have seen, jihadis argue that the struggle facing Muslims began with attacks by the West, an argument that is designed to convince doubting Muslims that they should join the battle against open aggression, the only good reason for war that most of the Islamic community now recognizes.” (Habeck 110)
Habeck, Mary R. Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Print.
[Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror can hardly be described as sympathetic to Muslims; the book borders on war-mongering.]
January 15th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
And before JihadBob screams “How dare you insinuate that Americans and Israelis engage in a suicide mission?”
Jihadbob, meet Dr. Baruch Goldstein. Accomplished America-Israeli physician, dedicated extremist Jew and loyal Kahanist whose grave had become a pilgrimage site for 10,000 Jewish extremists and who was declared to be the “greatest Jew alive” by Samuel Hacohen and at whose funeral Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said that “a million Arab lives are not even worth a Jewish fingernail”. But what did this peace loving Israeli extremist do to earn the adoration of thousands of equally peace-loving Israelis? Well, he sacrificed his life by emptying his automatic rifle into a crowd of praying Palestinians, preferring the satisfaction of seeing his victims die by his gunshots then pressing the detonator and missing the ‘good part’.
There you go Bob, an American and Israeli, well-educated man who gave his life to kill 29 Palestinians then allowing himself to get beaten up by the angry mob.
If I don’t say this, then I will be no better than Police Blotter Bob. The majority of Israelis condemned the massacre, many Rabbis were disgusted at his behaviour and Leftist Israeli politicians (who are detested by Geller) took the brave action of destroying the shrine that had been set up at his grave.
Again, this man didn’t pop out of a synagogue with the Torah in one hand and an automatic rifle in the other, he was influenced by generations of extremism and religious fanaticism and the belief that the Palestinians were occupying his land and so their killing was Kosher. Like I don’t attribute his actions to all Jews, neither should you attribute the actions of Muslims extremists to all Muslims.
January 15th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
@Bob re NassirH: “Bob is still trying to claim that Professor Lamoreaux’s
comments were seen as offensive because of his mention of a Coptic preacher….
Bob still doesn’t get the whole “Allah Asghar” thing. What a loon ignoramus.”
Bob, I’ll try to translate for you. I think he’s saying that you are idiot
because you don’t know Arabic. It is important to be clear: He is not saying
that you have no knowledge of Arabic because you have not studied it. This is
an affirmation our your worth as a moral actor. You are willfully and thus
culpably defective from the standpoint of what is religiously right and wrong,
good and evil.
He knows this about you, because you insist on trying to get him to say that he
disapproves of the excision of tongues and vigilante executions for blasphemy
of the one true God.
In fact, and here’s the rub: he is not in the least concerned about the tongues
or that blasphemer’s death. His is outraged instead what what he regards as
blasphemy that I myself have committed.
Up the thread a bit, a post by me was cited. In it I, too, was making fun of
Egypt’s insistence on prosecuting blasphemy. In this instance, it was the
world-famous case of Nasr Abu Zayd.
Abu Zayd, though a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote a book that another
professor (Shahin), also a member of the Brotherhood, declared blasphemous.
The professor was mostly just mad at Abu Zayd. He was younger and still a
junior member of the faculty. Abu Zayd has also insulted his honor. Abu Zayd
had been openly critical of him for endorsing a speculative financial venture
with dubious religious credentials (al-Rayyan Islamic Investment Company).
This so-called Islamic bank was being aggressively marketed to poor Egyptians
as the perfect place for pious Muslims to keep.their money safe.
The venture failed spectacularly. He wiped out the life savings of a whole mess
of poor folk. Not surprisingly, Abu Zayd’s colleague and the other men in
charge got very, very wealthy.
A few people thought this was wrong. Abu Zayd was one. He even said that the
money should be returned.
When Abu Zayd came up for promotion, the professor declared his main book to be
blasphemous, as did a number of the professors business associates and friends.
He court agreed. Being a blasphemer, he was now official an infidel or kafir.
It is not permitted for a Muslim woman to be married to something like that.
Thus, along with the other legal and fiscal disabilities entailed by being a
blasphemer, the court declared him divorced from Ebtehal, his wife—and this,
even though neither he nor his wife wanted to be divorced.
As if this were not enough, a young man named Ayman al-Zawahri, from a group
called Islamic Jihad, decreed that it was an Islamic duty to kill him.
Shortly thereafter, a group of scholars, mostly representing al-Azhar, called
on the government “to carry out the legal punishment for apostasy—death.”
[This is from Voice of an Exil, Abu Zayd's autobiography, written once he
had been able to flee to Europe.]
Needless to say, Shahin just couldn’t bear the thought of Ebtehal living the
life of a spinster. He offered to bring her another husband, and promised to
pay for the wedding.
Her evil-ex was a bit miffed:
“I find it hard to forgive such arrogance. If I have an opportunity, I will
do my best to insult him — not for my sake, but for Ebtehal’s. Imagine!
Offering to bring Ebtehal a man to marry her. He’s vulgar. I have to wonder.
The whole country. The president. The rector of Cairo University. The prime
minister. They all are aware that Shahin is as crooked as the day is long.
Egypt’s culture considers marriage and family sacred. How could Shahin get
away with treating the institution so disrespectfully?”
Indeed. Well said, brother.
The majority of Egyptians agreed. Worse, when news of this reached the
non-Muslim world. Folks laughed so hard that they had to change their
undergarments.
As this was covered by every news outlet, for many months,
it is likely the main thing that non-Muslims will associate
with Egyptian Islam, for the next twenty years.
I find that very unfortunate.
Indeed, it was my contention that the decision of the Egyptian court brought
shame on Egypt and Islam. The court thought God so very small (asghar) that he
needed them to defend his honor. Hence I closed my acerbic recollection
of that event with the phrase “How small God is become.”
Perhaps NassirH disagrees.
Still, this does not excuse you for your morally objectionably behavior.
Would that I could hereby assign you as penance fifty “Our Fathers”. (I
cannot, as that would be blasphemous, in that God does not have a son and
to suggest otherwise is to commit blasphemy.)
Dear brother Nassir, I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was
intended.
As for you, bad Bob, I am more concerned by the difficulty you are having
understanding the simple concept of blasphemy. I shall help you if you
are willing to learn. Let’s start with this simple exercise.
Which of the following admonitions is more likely to prevent blasphemy?
Is it A?
“We have no desire to inflame or insult Muslims by inflaming and insulting
them. America stands for freedom and we fully believe in that right. Freedom
doesn’t include a right to decency or good taste.”
Or, is it B?
“We have no desire to inflame or insult New Yorkers by inflaming and insulting
them. America stands for freedom and we fully believe in that right. Freedom
doesn’t include a right to decency or good taste.”
Or perhaps, is it C? They are actually both saying the same thing.
Tricky, no?
I eagerly await your answer.
Hugs and Kisses,
John
January 16th, 2011 at 4:31 am
Dr, I think you have read Nassir’s stuff wrong in my opinion, I believe his comments were r.e. bob’s continued babyish behavior. A quick search of bob’s comments will show this aforementioned and quite frankly boring behavior in spade loads. Note how bob is is still bigging up how he ‘predicted’ that there would be a suicide attack against the Copts, something akin to me predicting I will take a breath within the next two minutes. He bigs this up because this is the only thing he has never had to ‘drop’ before, the only thing he has got ‘correct’ (also note that when he made the claim, no one said it wouldn’t happen). That is the level of this individual who unfortunately brings nothing to the conversation other than bigotry, hate and badly thought out ‘arguments’.
Anyway, I agree with you on this so called ‘blasphemy’ case, much like the ‘blasphemy laws’ in Pakistan, it has little to do with faith and more to do with giving power to those who want it. It is extremely easy to accuse someone of ‘blasphemy’ (the Life Of Brian segment where the crowd is at the stoning of a ‘blasphemer’ springs to mind) and extremely easy for unscrupulous individuals in government to use this as another way to ‘control’ the masses. This is why ‘blasphemy law’ are only meant to be enacted by the proper person, a capalith or whatever you wish to call it, certainly not a so called ‘secular’ government as appears in Egypt or Pakistan, especially not a corrupt one whereby it just becomes another tool to suppress. I suspect that the aforementioned support for ‘blasphemy’ in the case in Egypt was more out of fear on the part of the masses (who would be next? Is it not true that someone who supports a blasphemer also a blasphemer?) and a mix of power and fear on the part of the so called religious groups. And as you say yourself, God does not need defending by mere mortals, nor will God ‘die’ if a Qu’ran is burned or a fool draws an offensive picture. In my opinion, such acts of ‘defense’ are merely people making up for other inadequacies in their personal faith, like the man that prays out loud so all can see or publicly gives to charity so people think better of him. It is also a sign of where groups of fanatics compete to be more fanatical than the other and thus stray further and further from faith. “What?! Al-Queda took down the twin towers?! Quick, get me some semtex and an atlas! And behead someone or something, we are slipping behind and it’s almost time for the quarterly report!” My two coins of your preferred denomination to the value of two cents.
January 16th, 2011 at 5:24 am
@Jack Cope:
Thanks for the response.
I was actually trying to comment on the post further back:
This one:
“January 15th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I see that Bob is still trying to claim that Professor Lamoreaux’s comments were seen as offensive because of his mention of a Coptic preacher whose tongue was cut off….
JihadBob still doesn’t get the whole “Allah Asghar” thing. What a loon ignoramus.”
My post will not reach the board until it has been ‘moderated’. Sometimes it’s pretty quick. But sometimes it takes a while, and lots of fresh voices are added.
I can see some small benefit in blasphemy laws, very small, in that they help keep a lid on trouble, by making people afraid to be too uncivil.
But in the end, is enforced respect even respect? It’s like trying to force someone to love you.
I understand where the classical texts stand on this point. But perhaps some argument could be made, one that would introduce need evolution? This has always been the way the jurists work.
I think the ultimate result is most harmful: not so much to religion, but to the way folks think about how true is and how it is to be defended.
And as you rightly note, such laws are easy to use against anyone you do not like.
I sometimes think that some American Muslims kinda have an expectation (not conscious) that Islam deserves respect and that such respect ought to be protected by law. Of course, this is usually expressed as `protection of the honor of all religions.’
It cannot work that way. No religion can ever make everyone love it, and is it not better to force all religions to earn respect. Some will; some won’t be able to. One’s critic is the greatest friend, even when he hates you.
The problem is: Many religions make true claims that contradict one another. As in my example: If we had such a law, either Islam or Christianity would not be able to say what it believes about Christ. Its claims are as opposite one another as can be, on just about all major points: cross, incarnation, trinity, what will happen will Christ returns.
Also, who will guard the guardian? Where is the check against the power of a religious leader who stands at the top of a society. Whatever religion may be, we know well what men are. And they usually fall into great errors when great power is theirs.
Even in the first few centuries of Islam. So many caliphs did such bad things.
In a sense, it is the very idealism of a caliphate that would makes it most dangerous to itself.
Life of Brian! Good one. I’d forgotten the blasphemy scene. It’s a hoot!
Of course, when I get my blasphemy laws passed, we’ll keep M.Python. SpongeBob will the first to go.
#
Have a quick look at CNN at the comments to the article on the Pakistani reaction to the Pope on blasphemy. I can’t believe the number of people talking about killing. It’s a lot of work to kill that many people, and it takes a lot of nasty even to suggest it. It seems that the genocidal wishes are running about 50/50, non-Muslim/Muslim. Again, I just don’t remember this sort of talk at this level of intensity, even just one year ago (except re Palestine/Israel).
It’s not a good sign. Nor is it likely to have a good effect on Muslim and Christian relations in Europe and North America.
Am I wrong in thinking that the tenor of such debates took a real sharp turn to nasty last year?
#
If I can assume you’re in the U.S. for a moment, if you could get a minimal blasphemy/religious respect law passed, would you want to?
#
And Bob. Just in case I was confusing. By me pretending to teach you about blasphemy I’m making fun of blasphemy laws. I’m quite sure you get blasphemy already.
And guys, you’ve got to admit that Bob is also sometimes right about other things, including some really important ones.
Cheers,
John
January 16th, 2011 at 6:28 am
Interesting explanation Dr. Lamoreaux but I think it was obvious why you were doing it and it wasn’t some clever point about what blasphemy has done to the God’s status but another common saying of many Islamophobes. It is to mock the Muslim’s use of “Allah Akbar” and, thinking that Allah is a “moon-god” and not the God of the Bible, they say “Allah Asghar” as an insult.
This phrase is seen on numerous anti-Islam and anti-Muslim forums, often after the Islamophobe has declares his wish of seeing Mecca hit by a nuke. So it is not wrong for us to assume that you, despite being a ‘scholar’, were just insulting Muslims and at the same time claiming that Allah is different from God.
You used the phrase with an exclamation mark and at the end of your comment which means that it was used as an insult. Personally, I wasn’t offended because the use of that phrase just exposed you as another childish Islamophobe but everyone was shocked that you came here, as a ‘scholar’ and claiming to want a serious discussion, whilst having said things that were not appropriate. Clearly you behave differently around Muslim-haters than you do around Muslims.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:08 am
http://people-press.org/reports/images/206-29.gif
January 16th, 2011 at 8:23 am
He knows this about you, because you insist on trying to get him to say that he disapproves of the excision of tongues and vigilante executions for blasphemy of the one true God.
Isn’t this what it is indeed all about?
The members here have already managed to dig themselves into a little hole regarding the general feelings of the Copts of Egypt being on the eve of Kristallnacht as being ‘Islamophobic’ but heroically came to the defense of Muslims who’ve claimed that Muslims in Europe were the new Jews.
I guess we’ll have to wait for when Muslims in Europe have their tongues cut off for proselytizing or when unruly mobs of thousands burn their Mosques down.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Nice to see JihadBob pull out a poll from many many years ago, because latest polls give a different image:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1338-2.gif
January 16th, 2011 at 8:44 am
“I guess we’ll have to wait for when Muslims in Europe have their tongues cut off for proselytizing or when unruly mobs of thousands burn their Mosques down.”
Meanwhile, the unruly mobs on JahilWatch and Atlas Shrieks long for destruction of mosques in the West and the rounding up and deportation of Muslims, possibly to a place where one can conveniently drop a nuke onto them.
And by the way, you don’t have to wait any longer for Mosques to be burned down. Scroll to the Tag Cloud of this site, click on the “Mosque” tag and read the ones about desecration, arson and bomb attacks on mosques in Israel, Europe and the US. Like this one.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:49 am
One can address if confidence and favorability have the same meaning, but the real reason for the decline in either is pretty obvious – Islamic terrorism targeting Muslim countries is the drive for the declining support for al-Qaeda, etc.
Hopefully, for al-Qaeda’s popularity (if one were to care about the group’s image), al-Qaeda will refocus its efforts and exclusively target Western/non-Muslim nations.
Because, after 9/11, (but before the carnage of the Iraq war) we saw that al-Qaeda was at this time the most popular it had ever been.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:50 am
“Isn’t this what it is indeed all about?”
No.
“The members here have already managed to dig themselves into a little hole regarding the general feelings of the Copts of Egypt being on the eve of Kristallnacht as being ‘Islamophobic’ but heroically came to the defense of Muslims who’ve claimed that Muslims in Europe were the new Jews.”
Err…no. Please point me to a comment here that claims that Copts who feel as being on the eve of Kristallnacht are Islamophobic. JCL said Egypt was like 1933 — even he did not make the comparison to Kristallnacht.
I see no problem in Copts feeling like they are on the eve of Kristallnacht, if they do feel like that because I haven’t seen an article that claims they do but you might have, and I see no problem if Muslims feel the same, if they do feel like that because I don’t see any article that claims Muslims feel like its Kristallnacht but you might have. Who are you to control what people should or should not feel? The MP did not claim to be comparing their situation to the Holocaust but said that the way Islamophobia was widely accepted was similar to how anti-semitism was widely accepted in 1933 Germany.
“when unruly mobs of thousands burn their Mosques down.”
Perhaps not in Europe but Muslims of India and Israel can say something about that. It doesn’t really look promising for Muslims if the “world’s largest democracy” and the “only democracy in the Middle East” are doing such things. And how will you respond? Probably by bringing up news of a Church burnt down by Muslim mobs…Typical Bob.
And…please don’t try and change the subject! There is much you have left unanswered on this thread.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:50 am
“Because, after 9/11, (but before the carnage of the Iraq war) we saw that al-Qaeda was at this time the most popular it had ever been.”
Ever cared to ask yourself why?
By the way.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12201318
January 16th, 2011 at 8:51 am
And by the way, you don’t have to wait any longer for Mosques to be burned down. Scroll to the Tag Cloud of this site, click on the “Mosque” tag and read the ones about desecration, arson and bomb attacks on mosques in Israel, Europe and the US. Like this one.
Yes, with all those unruly mobs numbering in the thousands, Muslims must be cowering in their homes waiting in dreadful anticipation for the next mass act of violence perpetrated against their community.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Sphinx, I like the update on that Mosque attack you linked to:
Update: A Muslim, who attended the mosque is now being charged for burning the mosque. As much as Islamophobes would love to gloat about this, it really doesn’t let them off the hook when anti-Muslims bomb and vandalize mosques.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/07/georgia-mosque-set-on-fire/
January 16th, 2011 at 8:57 am
“Yes, with all those unruly mobs numbering in the thousands, Muslims must be cowering in their homes waiting in dreadful anticipation for the next mass act of violence perpetrated against their community.”
I thought the Shrieking Harpy was insisting that her unruly mob in Manhattan reached 10’000 people. Had there been a building site to the community centre, I do not want to imagine what would’ve happened.
And last time I checked, Copts weren’t cowering in their homes in fear. In fact, this Orthodox Christmas, I was told by Coptic friends from Cairo that their churches were fuller than they had can ever remember.
Maybe it was all those pesky Mooselimbs standing outside, getting in the way with their human shield nonsense.
Oh, and you’ve changed the subject. Shame on you, old Bob.
January 16th, 2011 at 8:58 am
JCL said Egypt was like 1933
No, JCL said that Copts feel this way about Egypt:
My friend, if you want to understand how Copts feel these days, you’ve got to recognize that these things happen. It’s not my fault that many feel like Egypt today is like Germany on the eve of Kristallnacht.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:01 am
“Sphinx, I like the update on that Mosque attack you linked to”
Admittedly, I do feel quite silly now.
But there’s a truth in it. Enjoy your gloating while it lasts. Will you go off the hook on this one?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/mosque-in-florida-firebombed/
January 16th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Ever cared to ask yourself why?
Sure, Muslims only distanced themselves from AQ after tens of thousands of their coreligionists were murdered at the hands of AQ.
Simple as that, really.
And since when are 20% approval ratings a complete rejection of AQ?
But I guess it’s better than 40, 50 or 60% ratings from 2001-2003.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:08 am
“Sure, Muslims only distanced themselves from AQ after tens of thousands of their coreligionists were murdered at the hands of AQ.”
That wasn’t the question, Bob. Please don’t try to change the subject.
I’ll ask it again: Ever cared to ask yourself why support for Al Qaeda was at it’s highest directly after 9/11?
“And since when are 20% approval ratings a complete rejection of AQ?”
You claimed there was a solid majority of people who love Osama Bin Laden. Since when are 20% approval ratings a “solid majority”? It was in response to this silly claim of yours, not claiming that nobody likes the guy.
Please don’t try to change the subject.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Yes, there are lone wolf types who firebomb Mosques just as there are types who do the same to Synagogues and Churches.
I know in France we saw a large number of Jewish centers vandalized and attacked.
I would say it was disproportionate for their numbers (around 500 or 600 thousand), and this list only covered a period of three and a half months:
http://www.kintera.org/atf/cf/%7BDFD2AAC1-2ADE-428A-9263-35234229D8D8%7D/franceattacks.pdf
January 16th, 2011 at 9:10 am
“Because, after 9/11, (but before the carnage of the Iraq war) we saw that al-Qaeda was at this time the most popular it had ever been.”
So you admit you misused a poll from years ago to represent the situation today?
“but the real reason for the decline in either is pretty obvious – Islamic terrorism targeting Muslim countries is the drive for the declining support for al-Qaeda, etc.”
Do you have a problem with that? Obviously the support for Al-Qaeda was going to drop if they started attacking Muslim countries. The support for Israel would drop also if they started attacking America.*Duh*. It’s a bit obvious. But you’re trying to say that the only reason Muslims hate Osama is because he is killing Muslims rather than infidels. Well, firstly, this proves he goes against Islam by killing civilians especially Muslims. Secondly, 93% of Muslim condemn 9/11, an attack in which mostly non-Muslims died so evidently the majority of the world’s Muslim population doesn’t agree with Osama even when non-Muslims are involved.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/27/poll-majority-muslims-worldwide-condemn-9-11/
But of course you are not going to trust “dhimmi” Esposito.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:10 am
“Yes, there are lone wolf types who firebomb Mosques just as there are types who do the same to Synagogues and Churches.”
Aah, the hypocrisy of the islamophobe. If a lone Muslim bombs a Church or Times Square, it’s instantly the fault of Islam, and the entire Muslim world has to bear the shame. But never when it’s a non-Muslim.
Highly predictable.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:12 am
?You claimed there was a solid majority of people who love Osama Bin Laden
There were, 65% of Pakistanis hearted OBL.
These numbers may have dropped after the chickens came home to roost in Pakistan and across the Muslim world.
Hundreds of Pakistani Taliban suicide bombings and thousands in Iraq might have that effect.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Aah, the hypocrisy of the islamophobe. If a lone Muslim bombs a Church or Times Square
We’re comparing vandalism of houses of worship to vandalism of other houses of worship.
The two can be compared.
Bomb attacks targeting Times Square is a wee different because it belongs to a different category.
Ditto with a suicide bombing that took out nearly two dozen people – and we don’t know how large the cell was, now do we?
January 16th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Bob, this is getting ridiculous. Here’s what you said:
“I personally feel that when there’s a social equilibrium in favor of the repressive laws of Sharia, populations who are ready to riot at the drop of a Koran and solid majorities who heart OBL and believe Mossad did 9/11, it’s time for a little reality check that if these same masses got in power, the current situation would be worse by an order of magnitude.”
Then you want on to say that you don’t want Pakistan or Egypt to undergo a revolution because of this.
Then you were shown clear evidence of the falseness of your premise.
Instead of admitting you were wrong, you frantically twist and bend your talking point about present day Egypt and Pakistan hearting OBL to make it about Muslims disliking Al Qaeda for killing Muslims (and why the hell should they not?)
Please don’t try to change the subject.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:22 am
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/11/06/israels-kristallnacht-police-demolish-bedouin-mosque/
What kind of evil Mooslim would make such a comparison between Kristallnacht and the situation of Muslim minorities in Israel? Oh, he’s Jewish.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:22 am
“One can address if confidence and favorability have the same meaning, but the real reason for the decline in either is pretty obvious – Islamic terrorism targeting Muslim countries is the drive for the declining support for al-Qaeda, etc.
Hopefully, for al-Qaeda’s popularity (if one were to care about the group’s image), al-Qaeda will refocus its efforts and exclusively target Western/non-Muslim nations.
Because, after 9/11, (but before the carnage of the Iraq war) we saw that al-Qaeda was at this time the most popular it had ever been.”
Oh man, here we go again… point by point then…
“One can address if confidence and favorability have the same meaning, but the real reason for the decline in either is pretty obvious – Islamic terrorism targeting Muslim countries is the drive for the declining support for al-Qaeda, etc.”
Nope, it’s more likely to be that every Muslim nation, every scholar of note, have stood up and denounced these vile individuals from the word go, we’ve pretty much had it drummed into us that these people are un-Islamic, not that most of us believed they were. Malaysia hasn’t been touched by Al-Queda yet it’s ‘approval rating’ here is perhaps the lowest in the world. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, which is blighted by Al-Queda, it’s ‘approval rating’, while still low, is higher than Malaysia. Thus your theory doesn’t hold water even in that most basic test, it can be repeated for many countries.
“Hopefully, for al-Qaeda’s popularity (if one were to care about the group’s image), al-Qaeda will refocus its efforts and exclusively target Western/non-Muslim nations.”
Al-Queda’s main targets have always been what it sees as the corrupt leaders of Muslim countries such as Saudi. That is who they set out to get rid of, then they were used to fight the commies and they took a whole new angle on the thing. But still, they aim mostly to unite the Muslim world and ‘take back’ these countries from the corrupt or as they see non-Muslim leaders of Muslim countries. Not that they ever will, they have pretty much collapsed, what we are now seeing is effectively the ‘spirit’ of Al-Queda, not the group itself, and this is how it is seen by the intelligence community at least, where Al-Queda doesn’t denote a group, it denotes a methodology.
“Because, after 9/11, (but before the carnage of the Iraq war) we saw that al-Qaeda was at this time the most popular it had ever been.”
Of course we did! And we know why don’t we? The ‘underdog’ had bitten back that the oppressor! That was how it was seen by some but not all Muslims, the US, after years of bombing the shite out of everyone else, having it’s sense of security violated and ‘getting some of ti’s own medicine’. Not that I approve of such an outlook, I was horrified, but I can understand why people saw it that way. The US had been arrogant for far to long.
Anyway, you bore me. We stand at yet another crossroads of time and it’s up to us which path to take. I’ll continue trying my best to bring peace, expose hate and work together, you are most welcome to carry on with your childish ways, drop the topics that are uncomfortable or that you have no answers to and await whatever you think is going to happen. Peace.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Oh, JB, please explain how “5,000 police officers” counts as “lone wolf types”?
Israel, the only “democracy” in the Middle East.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:23 am
“Bomb attacks targeting Times Square is a wee different because it belongs to a different category.”
Since when does Islamophobistan make any kind of nuanced distinction when it comes to terror attacks? When they happen it’s all about “zOMG T3h m00slimbs R out to get us!!!1!!14!”, but when confronted with facts, let’s not spare on splitting hairs.
Just like a Chameleon.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:25 am
“Of course we did! And we know why don’t we? The ‘underdog’ had bitten back that the oppressor! That was how it was seen by some but not all Muslims, the US, after years of bombing the shite out of everyone else, having it’s sense of security violated and ‘getting some of ti’s own medicine’. Not that I approve of such an outlook, I was horrified, but I can understand why people saw it that way. The US had been arrogant for far to long.”
Dammit Jack, I was trying to get him to figure that out on his own..
But come to think of it, he never would have…
January 16th, 2011 at 9:29 am
I predict Jihadbob might interpret Jack’s comment as him justifying or supporting the 9/11 attacks…
The right-wingers did that to Imam Abdul Rauf.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:31 am
One last thing before I leave
“Ditto with a suicide bombing that took out nearly two dozen people – and we don’t know how large the cell was, now do we?”
Of course we don’t, but do you know how large the cell was of the guy that firebombed the mosque in Florida? Can you really tell with certainty that it was only one person involved?
Or will we have to stick with the inconvenience of applying one standard to all?
January 16th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Since when does Islamophobistan make any kind of nuanced distinction when it comes to terror attacks? When they happen it’s all about “zOMG T3h m00slimbs R out to get us!!!1!!14!”, but when confronted with facts, let’s not spare on splitting hairs.
Actually, I never claimed or said thought that the church burning in Malaysia by Muslim fundamentalists were acts of terrorism (beyond what someone has claimed I said recently).
Of course we don’t, but do you know how large the cell was of the guy that firebombed the mosque in Florida? Can you really tell with certainty that it was only one person involved?
From wiring the explosives vest to preparing the explosives to even finding someone fanatical enough to blow himself up to scouting for a target are all more likely to involve more than one person in a way that someone tossing a Molotov cocktail at a building does not.
January 16th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Who’s talking about church burnings in Malaysia Bob? Guilty conscience much?
January 16th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Yeah, who was talking about church burnings in Malaysia? We were talking about the total destruction of mosques by angry mobs in India as well as the government in Israel as well as numerous arson attacks throughout Europe and America because you didn’t think mosque attacks happen as if Muslims have some kind of “taqiyya-shield” around their places of worship.
“Please don’t try to change the subject”!…
January 16th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
@Sphinx: “And by the way, you don’t have to wait any longer for Mosques to be burned down. Scroll to the Tag Cloud of this site, click on the “Mosque” tag and read the ones about desecration, arson and bomb attacks on mosques in Israel, Europe and the US. Like this one.”
Re Georgia mosque:
I’m a bit confused. Did the update to the story on the Georgia mosque fire just get added? or was it there before? Mendy’s identity has long been known.
Seems to me that the kuffar might have grounds for a defamation suit.
# Re: stats on AQ support in Middle East
Here’s what I’m seeing in the data, and I think I’ve now examined all the poll.
There was a significant swing in popular support for AQ and OBL in late 2005 and 2006.
In most instances, this was the first time it dropped below 50%. This swing coincides with the well-televised sectarian violence in Iraq, as well as an upturn in strikes against Muslims in KSA, Jordan etc.
For most countries the data is such that one can only conclude that there is a correlation. The exception is Jordan, where a group of researchers in Amman have tried to nail down the cause. They concluded that there was a causal connection between the violence and the poll numbers.
#
On this subject, there is a delightful exchange of letters between Zawahiri and Zarqawi.
They were private communications, so we get to see a bit of what is actually going on in their minds. Not pretty. [I can post the originals, if anyone is interested.]
# My paraphrase
Zawahiri. Yo, bro, you’re killing our numbers with those power drills.
Zarqawi: But God says I can kill rawafida-dogs [Shi'ites]. He said I can do it. He said I can. My precious! My precious!
Zawahiri: Not like that, brother! The leaders and any one with an education, yes, kill them any way you wish. But the masses must first be given a chance to renounced their error. I promise, we’ll take care of this and lots more. But first we gotta get the emirate on its feet. For now, let’s just agree to take it down a notch.
# Re OBL and 9/11
Mosizzle: “Secondly, 93% of Muslim condemn 9/11, an attack in which mostly non-Muslims died so evidently the majority of the world’s Muslim population doesn’t agree with Osama even when non-Muslims are involved.”
I’ve always been confused by numbers like this. Should we understand the data as it? Or must it be seen against the widespread belief that no Muslim had a hand in 9/11. That it was the Jews or Bush or rogue CIA, etc. Those numbers have been hovering at 80%, and rising, slowly but consistently. The only significant change over the last five or so years has been a swing to the Jews at the most likely perpetrator.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Is there no one here who favors the passage of legislation to foster the mutual respect of religions?
Muslim students at my university are a mixed bunch demographically, but they certainly have strong views on the subject.
I vote: No.
Bad for the U.S. Bad for Christians. Bad for Muslims.
I’d burn Bibles before letting it happen. It’s that important.
We could try to arrange an ecumenical scripture-burning protest. Each community burns its own, to indicate their support for the inviolability of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.
Anyone wish to join?
January 16th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
I think he want’s to backtrack on some statements he made, probably the one about two hundred Churches being burned down…
“I predict Jihadbob might interpret Jack’s comment as him justifying or supporting the 9/11 attacks…”
No doubt about it, they normally do. It’s is because the US is perfect and people hate it for being perfect you see, hence the 9/11 attacks, all because of that. “THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS” remember?
January 16th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
I think he want’s to backtrack on some statements he made, probably the one about two hundred Churches being burned down…
Which statement was that? I’m sure you bookmarked it if I really made it.
No, I was commenting that I am consistent when it comes to terrorist attacks – I typically wouldn’t label an arson attack against a house of worship as a terrorist attack and I followed this up by saying that I didn’t consider the dozen or so churches attacked in Malaysia by Muslim fundamentalists as acts of terrorism, though I consider the suicide bombing in Egypt against a church as being an act of terrorism.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“I didn’t consider the dozen or so churches attacked in Malaysia by Muslim fundamentalists as acts of terrorism, though I consider the suicide bombing in Egypt against a church as being an act of terrorism.”
How does that work? Both acts are terrorism.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
“Which statement was that? I’m sure you bookmarked it if I really made it.”
Nope, since I have a life and thus following around individuals on websites and noting their every word is not on my to do list. If you didn’t I apologize but I am pretty sure you did since I tend to recall when people make that sort of statement but it could have been one of the other loons. Again, I apologize if you didn’t say it.
“No, I was commenting that I am consistent when it comes to terrorist attacks – I typically wouldn’t label an arson attack against a house of worship as a terrorist attack and I followed this up by saying that I didn’t consider the dozen or so churches attacked in Malaysia by Muslim fundamentalists as acts of terrorism, though I consider the suicide bombing in Egypt against a church as being an act of terrorism.”
Yes and no here. First of all, it wasn’t a dozen and they were hardly attacked. I’d put the one that had it’s office burned out as ‘terrorism’ since that is what it was but the others were pretty much vandalism. I’d also consider the Mosque that was firebombed and had explosives left in it by Christian fundamentalists in Malaysia at the same time as terrorism and the other Mosques attacked as vandalism, so fine, Muslims 1, Christians 1 (that still doesn’t stop the ’200 churches’ thing being paraded around as fact though). However, even an arson attack or simple vandalism can be terrorism, it depends. A gang of neo-Nazis spray painting swastikas on Mosques and Synagogues is pretty much terrorism, since the group is both organized and trying to spread terror. Jared Loughner, even though he probably worked alone, was also a terrorist because again, his actions were designed to spread terror and unrest and have had that effect.
January 16th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
I’m interested in what JihadBob’s definition of “terrorism” is if he can make such a distinction.
January 17th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
There’s no such thing as “Islamic” terrorism.
Many related topics to this article are discussed in this website:
top reasons why Islam has nothing do to with terrorism
January 17th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
^ AQ would disagree.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Most Muslims think Islam is antithetical to terrorism, and as Greeneye’s article refuting Spencer’s claims shows, they’re correct: the texts and teachings of Islam are in no way compatible with any form of terrorism. I could list numerous non-Muslim scholars, from Bernard Lewis to Juan Cole, who also agree with that conclusion.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uTUnWkJ4kmMC&pg=PA3&dq=the+myth+of+militant+Islam&hl=en&ei=kc80TcPoEoHGsAPT84ySBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20myth%20of%20militant%20Islam&f=false
Anyone wish to join?
As you probably already know, Prof. Lamoreaux, one of the proper ways to dispose of a Koran is by burning it. I don’t really know about appropriate Bible, Torah, Vedas, etc etiquette though, but perhaps you could enlighten.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Yeah they probably would, which is why Al-Qaeda does not represent Muslims and their ideology often been criticised by top Muslim leaders as going against Islam.
Please note JihadBob, insisting Al Qaeda is interpreting Islam correctly will not make them go away, in fact it will make them stronger. I always wonder why Islamophobes help terrorists by defending them using Quran and Hadith to make their acts acceptable in Islam and relentlessly attacking those Muslims who refute Al-Qaeda’s beliefs. Surely that is counter productive.
By saying Al Qaeda’s actions are okay in Islam, you make them more legitimate. If a Muslim says otherwise you accuse them of lying and deception. Why the hell is Spencer trying to convince Muslims that are peaceful and who believe their religion to be a religion of peace, that their religion requires them to be violent? Wouldn’t it be far more effective, if he truly was concerned about the safety of the world’s people, to side with the majority of Muslim scholars and agree that Islam rejects violence. It becomes clear that Spencer wants and needs Muslims to be violent. Why?
Well, let Islamophobe Walid Shoebat answer that question for you:
“I would wish that the whole Muslim world would listen to Mr. Bakri and fight by the sword literally, this way the nukes will take care of the whole problem once and for all.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tbyuyymsz0
Either that or they must convert to his religion. Which reminds me:
“And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, “Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance.” If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper.” [2:120]
How unfortunate are the Islamophobes. For everything they do only confirms the Quran and the words of the Prophet.
January 17th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“Please note JihadBob, insisting Al Qaeda is interpreting Islam correctly will not make them go away, in fact it will make them stronger. I always wonder why Islamophobes help terrorists by defending them using Quran and Hadith to make their acts acceptable in Islam and relentlessly attacking those Muslims who refute Al-Qaeda’s beliefs. Surely that is counter productive.
By saying Al Qaeda’s actions are okay in Islam, you make them more legitimate. If a Muslim says otherwise you accuse them of lying and deception. Why the hell is Spencer trying to convince Muslims that are peaceful and who believe their religion to be a religion of peace, that their religion requires them to be violent? Wouldn’t it be far more effective, if he truly was concerned about the safety of the world’s people, to side with the majority of Muslim scholars and agree that Islam rejects violence. It becomes clear that Spencer wants and needs Muslims to be violent. Why?”
I never understood that either, the only possible answer that I have come to is that they care not about peace and more about war/wiping Islam out/making a common enemy and so on. And of course that is sooooooooooooooooooooo totally not true, as Geller said, she *loves* us! If they cared then they would acknowledge, but they don’t and probably never will. Such being life…
January 17th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
“The only significant change over the last five or so years has been a swing to the Jews at the most likely perpetrator.”
It’s only because they can see how 9/11 made life for them worse and no ‘true’ Muslim would have wanted that. They see 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and tighten their control over the rest of the world. Statements by Netanyahu that Israel benefitted from the attacks on the Twin Towers doesn’t help the situation either.
As for statistics, we could be arguing all day long. The sample size for the questionnaire was something like 50 000 people, which is quite large.
But maybe you should take a glance at how many Pakistanis condemn terrorism:
http://www.yehhumnaheen.org/cc.php?finalpage_os=index.php
The ‘Yeh Hum Naheen’ project (Urdu for ‘this is not us’) had a petition which received an amazing 63 million signatures around the country, technically becoming the world’s largest petition and receiving at least 20 million more signatures than the number of votes in the country’s elections. It was a huge and successful project and was endorsed by Pakistani celebrities and singers who produced a popular song to go with the project. And before you say that they are only doing this because of the attacks on Pakistan, then you should take a look at the group’s condemnation of other world terrorist attacks such as the Mumbai atrocity.
Spencer is left scratching his head. “63 million Mooslims are doing taqiyya!”.
This still wasn’t enough to convince the ignorant terrorists. Sheikh Ali Gomaa was right. These terrorists “know no God, no patriotism, and no humanity”. Most importantly, the petition did not solve the ‘beef’ that the terrorists have with the Pakistani and American governments so they won’t stop until those problems are solved. But the petition is ample evidence that most Muslims do not approve of terrorism.
January 17th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
65% of Pakistanis heart OBL.
Pretty much says it all.
January 17th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Is that using your outdated statistics?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23094334/ns/world_news-terrorism/
“Backing for al-Qaida, whose senior leaders are believed to be hiding along the Pakistani-Afghan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent.”
63 million Pakistanis, not based on a poll from a small sample but actually 63 million, condemn terrorism in the largest petition ever conducted on this planet.
Pretty much says it all.
January 17th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Nice to see how you slyly changed the topic.
We were talking about your random comment about Church burnings in Malaysia and how you didn’t see that as terrorism whereas most of us would.
January 17th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Pretty much says it all…herp derp, Mooslims err bad!
Do you know what actually says it all, Bob? The fact that you couldn’t respond to even one of the points postulated by any of the other posters; the best you could do was make a false claim (clue: popular opinion is subject to change) and simultaneously make a fool of yourself.
January 17th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Don’t knock the guy’s skillzzz Nassir, he’s positively amazing at it. You have to be either very very stupid or very very smart in order to achieve such a feat. I’m fascinated from a psychological point of view.
January 17th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
63 million Pakistanis, not based on a poll from a small sample but actually 63 million, condemn terrorism in the largest petition ever conducted on this planet.
63 million Pakistanis condemn the killing of Pakistani civilians. No argument there.
That would be +their+ definition of terrorism.
January 17th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
And before you say that they are only doing this because of the attacks on Pakistan, then you should take a look at the group’s condemnation of other world terrorist attacks such as the Mumbai atrocity.
It seems JihadBob was pre-empted. And how can anyone denounce using anything but their own understanding of whatever the topic may be? It’s like me asking JihadBob to denounce Islamophobia using my own definition: don’t worry Bob, there’s no need for you to denounce it based on your understanding (which as we know, doesn’t exist), just use mine instead…
January 17th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
From the YHN site:
—-
Waseem Mahmood. 24th November. Indonesia.
Representatives of YHN were in Jakarta today to participate in an event organized by The Sabili Publishing Group. Leaders of the major Muslim organisations; Muhammadiyah, Nahdhatul Ulama, Al Irsyad Al Islamiyah, Persatuan Islam, Al Wasliyah, Al Ittihadiyah, Persatuan Islam Tionhghoa Indonesia and Majalah Sabili between them representing 160 million people signed an MOU pledging their support for YHN.
The communiqué stated “On behalf of all the Islamic mass organisations in Indonesia, herewith we re-affirm that Islam is a religion of peace for the universe, rahmatan lil alamin. We respect the human rights and reject the violence in any form. Based on the statements above, we support the Yeh Hum Naheen organization in Pakistan which has promoted peace and anti violence in Pakistan. This support is also particular to Muslims all over the world in order to keep peace and prosperity.”
Present at the event at the Four Seasons hotel were members of the Indonesian Press, Diplomats and other prominent members of Indonesian society.
I am amazed at the level of support that we are receiving from other Muslims from around the world especially this response from Indonesia which has had its fair share of terrorist attacks in the past. It is only by taking ownership of the problem can we all really work to eradicate these elements from our societies.
—-
So that’s a further 160 million supporters JihadBob, as represented by their organisations. How can you continue to argue?
January 17th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
And Bob, that’s just under 70% of Indonesia’s total population. Considering that according to census statistics, 86.1% of Indonesia’s 230 million population is (at least nominally) Muslim, that’s almost 81% of the overall Indonesian Muslim population.
January 17th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Just to add to the above, that is the same organization that sent it’s leaders to Israel to discuss how to solve the current situation to the benefit of both sides. I have a better article somewhere but this will do for now:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3480702,00.html
“63 million Pakistanis condemn the killing of Pakistani civilians. No argument there.
That would be +their+ definition of terrorism.”
bob’s mind reading skills at work again, well done you! Seriously grow up. Does the truth hurt? I think it seems to and I know why.
January 17th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
My apologizes, I read the name wrong, it was the Indonesian organization Nahdlatul Ulama who sent the delegation, they were also at that peace conference. They represent around 70 million people.
January 18th, 2011 at 1:33 am
Jack: They are included in the short news bulletin article I posted above.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:19 am
My last post – deleted.
’nuff said.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Me:”And before you say that they are only doing this because of the attacks on Pakistan, then you should take a look at the group’s condemnation of other world terrorist attacks such as the Mumbai atrocity.”
JB: “63 million Pakistanis condemn the killing of Pakistani civilians. No argument there.
That would be +their+ definition of terrorism.”
Looks like you didn’t read my whole comment. Loon Fail. I destroyed your argument before you even made it.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:37 am
“My last post – deleted.”
That’s not the only thing that’s been mysteriously deleted recently….
http://spencerwatch.com/2011/01/04/sheila-musaji-robert-spencer-and-the-disappearing-articles/
Why don’t you tell us what you said that was deleted. Obviously it must have been more inappropriate than the stuff you have said in the past.
“’nuff said.”
On the contrary, ’nuff has not been said. There are many things you have yet to answer on this thread.
January 18th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Why not repost then, instead of simply saying that something was deleted?
January 18th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Why not repost then, instead of simply saying that something was deleted?
I don’t save a post of mine if it’s not long – the post was simply citing a pew poll in Indonesia that shows 23% of Indonesians who are supporters of al-Qaeda and my mentioning that there is a bell curve to supporting al-Qaeda and extremism (the survey also showed that 35% (?) of Indonesians also support Hamas).
So, if, say, 20% of a population are al-Qaeda supporters – how many support the 9/11 attacks, suicide bombings against Israel and al-Qaeda’s stringent interpretation of Islamic law, in addition to holding intolerant and bigoted views of Christians, etc?
There’s a bell curve and that’s what needs to be kept in mind when percentages are flatly presented.
January 18th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Mighty strange that your post stating the above managed to get through unscathed, yet your earlier post was “deleted”?
January 18th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
And it’s interesting that you choose to cite Pew Poll where it also states that “Eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan say suicide bombing and other acts of violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies are never justified”. What was it you were saying in an earlier discussion about Pakistan?
January 18th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Yes indeed. 65% of Pakistanis heart OBL.
You can compare the Pakistani poll results all you want, I simply don’t buy them for a second, but the Indonesian results are more believable – 23% of Indonesian Muslims support al-Qaeda.
Now, if we look at this through a bell curve, what do you think that would indicate as to the beliefs held by the rest of Indonesia’s Muslim population?
January 18th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Mighty strange that your post stating the above managed to get through unscathed, yet your earlier post was “deleted”?
Just like AbdulMajid’s comments were never deleted, huh?
Regardless, I don’t know why my post went missing because it was not an exceptionally long post or anything, just a three sentence long comment.
January 18th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“There’s a bell curve and that’s what needs to be kept in mind when percentages are flatly presented.”
Good thing I didn’t give a percentage. 63 million Pakistanis in the world’s largest petition declared their hatred of terrorism. You have to admit, that is an astonishing number of brave Pakistanis who refuse to buy into the extreme ideology of Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. This becomes more reliable than the polls given by other organisations as the sample size is huge.
Please give a link to the Pew poll. Are you sure your last comment wasn’t deleted for having multiple links–Loonwatch usually only allows posts with one link.
Sorry but I don’t understand this bell curve business. If it says 23% have a favourable view of Al-Qaeda that is unrelated to their views on Sharia, for example. For example 40% see amputation as a suitable punishment for stealing. They can support Islamic law and still be against Al Qaeda, after all Al-Qaeda mostly operates outside of Islamic Law. The discussion currently is that the majority of Muslims reject terrorism. And most polls, as well as the largest petition ever conducted in human history, show that most Muslims reject terrorism.
January 18th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Yes indeed. 65% of Pakistanis heart OBL.
Bob, you do realize that this was already shown to be false twice? I do believe they have a word for what you’re exhibiting.
“Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
You can compare the Pakistani poll results all you want, I simply don’t buy them for a second, but the Indonesian results are more believable – 23% of Indonesian Muslims support al-Qaeda.
So instead of cold hard facts you prefer your own groundless conjecture? Again, you’re blatantly in denial.
January 18th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
What’s the point in citing poll statistics in any of your arguments here anyway if you can simply state at whim “I don’t believe them for a second”, or use your own subjectivity to judge if one part is “more believable” than another?
Yes indeed. 65% of Pakistanis heart OBL.
So 65% of Pakistanis love OBL, yet 80% are against suicide bombing and targeting civilians. Go figure. But I see how you got your percentage, even though you got the maths wrong. The poll mentions that for Pakistan, 19% have a favourable opinion of Hezbollah, 18% Hamas, and it records “–” (i.e. a blank or non-applicable) for al-Qaeda. So doing the clumsy maths: 100-19-18 = 63.
But again, you ignore the note stated by Pew themselves, that the question is detailed in another place. It records there that only 18% of Pakistanis have a favourable opinion of al-Qaeda, with 53% holding unfavourable views and a further 28% in the ill-defined or explained “don’t know” category.
January 18th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
NassirH, it’s not just a river in Egypt!
January 18th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Yes indeed. 65% of Pakistanis heart OBL.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23094334/ns/world_news-terrorism/
“Backing for al-Qaida, whose senior leaders are believed to be hiding along the Pakistani-Afghan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent.”
Loon fail.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
28% of Republicans like JahilBob think violence against the government is justified..meaning killing civilians is A-okay.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
A whopping 85% of Republicans don’t like Muslims, 66% don’t like Arabs, and most of them think they already “know enough” or “don’t want to learn more” about Islam or the Arab world.
Attitudes towards Arabs: Democrats — 57% favorable, 30% unfavorable; Republicans — 28% favorable, 66% unfavorable.
Attitudes towards Muslims: Democrats — 54% favorable, 34% unfavorable; Republicans — 12% favorable, 85% unfavorable…
The combination produces a lethal brew that is dangerous not only for the intolerance it has created, but the sense of certitude and self-righteousness it projects. This too comes through in our polling. When we ask Americans, in separate questions, whether they “know enough about Islam and Muslims (or Arab countries and people) or need to know more”, among Democrats, 68% say they would “like to know more” about Islam, with 80% wanting “to know more” about the Arab World. In answer to the same questions, 71% and 58% of Republicans say they “know enough” and “don’t want to learn more”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/gop-and-the-deepening-div_b_776431.html
January 18th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Happy to compare Muslim perceptions of Jews and Christians vs non-Muslim perceptions of Muslims.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
They can support Islamic law and still be against Al Qaeda, after all Al-Qaeda mostly operates outside of Islamic Law.
Yes, that’s my point.
There’s a significantly larger proportion of extremist Muslims than just the ones who don’t fully support al-Qaeda (especially when Islamic extremists recently bombed their countries – such as Pakistan).
January 18th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
So 65% of Pakistanis love OBL, yet 80% are against suicide bombing and targeting civilians. Go figure.
Let’s put it this way, what percentage of Pakistanis would you guesstimate admired Salmen Taseer’s murderer?
Do you really think it was only twenty percent?
January 18th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Think again, Dawood:
http://people-press.org/reports/images/206-29.gif
January 18th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
I think ‘Jihadbob’ is Robert Spencer.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Which report did you get that table from JihadBob? I couldn’t find it just from the link you gave alone. All I see when looking at the Pew site is a continuing trend that there is a substantial decline in support for OBL and suicide bombing, even in Pakistan. This is again confirmed in the more recent polls I linked to in a previous comment.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
You’re not really that clever are you Bob? I posted this before. Your “65%” statistic is old news.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1338-2.gif
“Yes, that’s my point.”
That Al-Qaeda operates outside of Islamic Law? That Al-Qaeda really are extremists and not real representatives of the faith. And that true Islamic law rejects terrorism. Good thing you admit it. Now try and convince Spencer who believes “that its violent aspects are not the result of deviance but of orthodoxy”.
“There’s a significantly larger proportion of extremist Muslims”
Any statistics? 63 million is much bigger than anything you can bring up. If you find a poll with at least a few million people in its sample, then we’ll talk. And it isn’t just AL-Qaeda that the group condemned. Like I said, “Yeh Hum Naheen” condemned the Mumbai attacks which were linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and they condemn honour killings, violence and generally believe Islam is a religion of peace.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Anyway, as you said yourself above, you don’t trust what polls say, so it’s a moot point.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
As Justin already said, Bob’s weak responses fill me with joy.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.
The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland’s prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” while 24 percent believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”
Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world’s most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are “never justified”; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.
hmmmm
January 18th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Bob is just frantically grasping at straws here.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=313
Both Iranians and Americans were asked a series of questions about attacks on civilians. Taking these questions together, it appears that Iranians reject attacks on civilians more overwhelmingly than do Americans.
At the most general level, respondents were asked: “Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”
A very large majority of Iranians (80%) take the strongest position that such attacks “are never justified,” and another 5 percent say they are rarely justified. Only 11 percent call them sometimes (8%) or often (3%) justified.
Americans largely concur but at lower levels of intensity. Forty-six percent say that such attacks are never justified, while 27 percent say they are rarely justified. Twenty-four percent see them as sometimes (19%) or often (5%) justified.
Iranians were also asked specifically about attacks on American and Iraqi civilians, with “sometimes” or “never” justified the only options given. Nine in ten Iranians (88%) say that “attacks against Iraqi civilians in Iraq” are never justified. Nearly as many (76 percent) say “attacks against American civilians living in the United States” are never justified (15% sometimes justified).
Respondents were then asked to think “in the context of war and other forms of military conflict” and to consider whether certain types of civilians could be a legitimate target. Overwhelming majorities of Iranians reject as “never justified:” attacks on women and children (91%), the elderly (92%), and “wives and children of the military” (86%).
Americans largely agree, though larger percentages in each case said such attacks are rarely justified. This is true for attacks on women and children (72% never, 15% rarely), the elderly (71% never, 16% rarely), and wives and children of the military (74% never, 12% rarely).
Three more questions dealt with targeting civilians employed by the government. Here again, Iranians are more unequivocal than Americans in their rejection of such attacks, whether the targets are civilians employed by the government, policemen, or intelligence agents.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
“you don’t trust what polls say”
Except the 65% which he’s hanging on to like a dingleberry. This poll is from 2004, a year after the Bush Crusade. Of course, you guys have shown again and again how support has dramatically declined. Yet, JahilBob’s mind appears to be blocking these facts to protect his warped psyche. It’s really interesting to watch.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
I don’t think Jihad Bob is Spencer…I think Jihad Bob is an Indian Hindu…I just have that feeling.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:57 am
JihadBob, why can’t you defend your friend Spencer’s misuse of verse 9:5? or his mention of Umdat al-Salik without actually reading it? or his complete lack of scholarly authority to speak on Islamic topics?
You cannot defend your friend Spencer and his lies that are exposed on this site. Therefore, you troll the comments in hopes of distracting people. Muslims put their lives on the line for interfaith peace. So do you have no fear of God?
Say, “O my people, work according to your ways, for indeed, I am working. And you are going to know who will have the Final Home. Indeed, the wrongdoers will not succeed.” [Surat al-An'am 6:135]
January 19th, 2011 at 9:09 am
JihadBob, why can’t you defend your friend Spencer’s misuse of verse 9:5?
Please read this thread and come back to me how v. 9:5 was quoted out of context:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?114459-quot-You-Quoted-Out-Of-Context-quot-debunked
All I see when looking at the Pew site is a continuing trend that there is a substantial decline in support for OBL and suicide bombing, even in Pakistan.
I’ve explained the decline before – it’s the result of the chickens coming home to roost in the Muslim world. We saw the same happenings as a result of the civil war in Algeria during the 90′s.
No worries, though. I figure Muslims, with their short term memory of their own actions, will eventually remember these attacks as the work of Israel.
Al-Qaeda is doing just fine in the Muslim world and they’ll always have an endless supply of martyrs.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:16 am
You’re still quoting that Narnian chick after her argument was shred to pieces by commentators here? You sir are the definition of bigotry…you believe what you want to believe.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:21 am
“Please read this thread and come back to me how v. 9:5 was quoted out of context:”
Your claim and that random forum you linked to were destroyed in this thread:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/12/asra-nomani-can-learn-a-thing-or-two-from-lesley-hazelton-about-the-quran/
How interesting… you ran away from that thread after you were exposed.
“I’ve explained the decline before – it’s the result of the chickens coming home to roost in the Muslim world. We saw the same happenings as a result of the civil war in Algeria during the 90′s.”
So you admit it is declining and that your figure of 65% is irrelevant and you purposefully used it even after I showed to you that it was out of date and therefore incorrect.
And please answer everything else that has been put to you in this thread, God will reward you for your e-crusade against evil Mooslims. Lol.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:38 am
“Please read this thread and come back to me how v. 9:5 was quoted out of context:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?114459-quot-You-Quoted-Out-Of-Context-quot-debunked”
Fecking hell bob, we have done this one so many times. See the above linked thread and also *the thread itself* where it was shredded. Then run away like always only to pop back up with it again…. oh wait, you’ll do that anyway.
“I’ve explained the decline before – it’s the result of the chickens coming home to roost in the Muslim world. We saw the same happenings as a result of the civil war in Algeria during the 90′s”
Please explain why Malaysia, which has had no terrorist attacks on it’s soil, has a lower ‘approval rating’ of Al-Queda than Pakistan, which has had numerous attacks on it’s soil.
“Al-Qaeda is doing just fine in the Muslim world and they’ll always have an endless supply of martyrs.”
Actually, they find it extremely difficult to recruit now, to the extent that they are having to use mentally challenged people and children as ‘fighters’ as bombers. Their days are numbered.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:43 am
“You sir are the definition of bigotry…”
Add ‘stupidity’, ‘boneheadedness’, ‘childishness’ and ‘didn’t do the research’ in there as well for starters.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Please explain why Malaysia, which has had no terrorist attacks on it’s soil, has a lower ‘approval rating’ of Al-Queda than Pakistan, which has had numerous attacks on it’s soil.
Because Malaysian Muslims are generally considered more moderate than Pakistani or Arab Muslims.
But this is relatively speaking. Non-Muslim Malaysians I know told me that Malaysia has a large presence of Muslim fundamentalists.
Actually, they find it extremely difficult to recruit now, to the extent that they are having to use mentally challenged people and children as ‘fighters’ as bombers. Their days are numbered.
No, don’t think so. Two more martyrdom seekers who carried out acts of sacrifice in Iraq in the past two days.
Not to mention the martyrdom seeker who sought Paradise in an Egyptian church.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:46 am
“Al-Qaeda is doing just fine in the Muslim world and they’ll always have an endless supply of martyrs.”
Thanks to the America’s brutal foreign policies and unnecessary invasions, Al-Qaeda’s job of recruiting Muslims has been made much easier. As Jack said, their reserves were running low, they even resorted to rape (I kid you not) to guilt more Muslims into killing themselves. Not going to blame all Americans for everything AQ does but the Islamophobia definitely made Al-Qaeda’s belief that the West hates Muslims far more believable. As Obama said, the Quran burning was a “recruitment bonanza”.
Also, the Taliban has a special message for you patriotic Islamophobes fighting that “Ground Zero Mega Mosque of Doom”.
“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”
Pat yourself on the back JihadBob. You have done a great service to your country. A real patriot. Seriously, if it had to do this whole Ground Zero Mosque thing, America might as well have funded the Taliban and given them all of their weapons. Oh wait, they did in. The Taliban thanks you twice.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/the-taliban-are-against-park51/
January 19th, 2011 at 9:50 am
As Obama said, the Quran burning was a “recruitment bonanza”.
Doesn’t say much about someone if they’re willing to join a terrorist group if some guy, thousands of miles away, threatened to burn a book.
That’s why I don’t buy the whole ‘moderate’ card dropped all too often.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:57 am
“Because Malaysian Muslims are generally considered more moderate than Pakistani or Arab Muslims.”
How convenient… try again. After you can explain why the same trend is present in Saudi as well as many other Muslim countries that are relatively unscathed.
“But this is relatively speaking. Non-Muslim Malaysians I know told me that Malaysia has a large presence of Muslim fundamentalists.”
Really? Then they can report these people to the RMP since they know so much about them, they will be very interested to hear about these masses of fundamentalists they somehow missed. Their website is down right now, but if they email me then I will pass it on to the correct party post haste, you have my address. I mean it BTW.
“No, don’t think so. Two more martyrdom seekers who carried out acts of sacrifice in Iraq in the past two days.
Not to mention the martyrdom seeker who sought Paradise in an Egyptian church.”
So they managed to get three misguided souls again. This out of a population of how many? And it can’t be denied that their numbers are dropping significantly, again their days are numbered.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:58 am
“That’s why I don’t buy the whole ‘moderate’ card dropped all too often.”
You don’t ‘buy’ it because it’s inconvenient.
January 19th, 2011 at 10:11 am
You don’t have to bluff about knowing Malaysians to get you out of an argumental shithole Bob. I doubt if you even know any Muslims tbh.
January 19th, 2011 at 10:17 am
I wasn’t going to bother to ask him for some details, I feel sorry that he is in such a state without adding to it.
January 19th, 2011 at 11:21 am
“Doesn’t say much about someone if they’re willing to join a terrorist group if some guy, thousands of miles away, threatened to burn a book.”
Typical typical Bob. Ignoring everything else and just focusing on one part of the comment, which was only a quote from your democratically elected President who is fortunately more sane than Sarah Palin. By the way, British people laugh at how Americans can even consider her as a possible future President. If she gets into power then she will be living proof that American style democracy isn’t perfect.
It’s not my problem that the Quran burning was a “recruitment bonanza” and I have no control over what other Muslims, also thousands of miles away, are doing. The fact is that it was a “recruitment bonanza”. Like I said, pat yourself on the back. You can moan and whine about freedom of speech and the right to burn private property on private land but it doesn’t change anything. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda profit out of your Islamophobia. Muslims that are on the fence in this ” clash of civilisation” are being drawn to the extremist side because Islamophobia is pushing them that away.
I’ll quote your favourite “dhimmi” Karen Armstrong about Spencer:
“His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to ‘prove’ to those Muslims who have been alienated by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith.”
Spencer is so amazingly stupid, so outrageously dumb and so brilliantly unaware of anything, anywhere related to Islam that he himself proved Armstrong’s view. He found and published a video promoting the Khilafah conference by Hizb Ut Tahrir (obviously to prove evil Mooslims are taking over the world). In the video, HUT members demonstrate that the West is “incurably hostile to their faith” and so a Khilafah must be established and Muslims must emigrate to it to save themselves from the Islamophobia. They showed Spencer’s book as proof that the West hates Muslims and that the situation for Muslims in West is getting difficult. Spencer notes this and was proud that his book has made some Muslims angry. However, the HUT members weren’t crying or burning flags, they were happy to have found so much evidence to support their case. But the moron just cannot comprehend that what he does actually strengthens the position of extremist Muslims.
It seems neither can you. So let’s hear it from the big bad men themselves.
“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”
More Islamophobia. More Muslims angry at the West. It only takes a few of those angry at the West to accept Al-Qaeda’s view that the West and Muslim world cannot be in peace, a view that is supported by examples that Islamophobes like you create, for things to get a little “explosive”.
If you want to whine about me shifting the blame to Islamophobes, don’t bother. My point is clear, Islamophobes are making things worse than they already are.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/the-taliban-are-against-park51/
January 19th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Wow JihadBob’s standard of posting has really gone downhill lately. It’s nothing more than trolling these days.
January 19th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Just wait Dawood, in a week or so he’ll be indistinguishable from Halal pork. Bob has been slowly descending into madness for quite some time now.
January 19th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
@JihadBob
“Rubin (Barāʾa, 13-32) shows that the early Muslim exegetes preferred to interpret the sword verse in its context, that is, in relation to the situation of the Prophet when it was revealed and in association with the verses surrounding it. q 9:1-5 are believed to have been revealed on the eve of the raid on Tabūk, when many of the pagans and hypocrites who had treaty obligations with the Prophet resisted joining him on the battlefield. Though al-Suddī explains the verses as a repudiation of Muḥammad’s agreement with all pagans, al-¶ Ṭabarī, al-Zamakhsharī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209), and al-Bayḍāwī deny that the Qurʾān could decree such intolerance. They divide Muḥammad’s non-monotheist allies into offensive and inoffensive groups and insist that the repudiation ( barāʾa) applied only to those non-monotheists who had violated their agreements. Al-Ṭabarī supports his interpretation with a tradition from Ibn ʿAbbās: “…If they remained loyal to their treaty with the Prophet,… [he] was ordered to respect their treaty and be loyal to it.” Significantly, Muḥammad’s treaty with the (pagan) Khuzāʿa, who remained loyal to him, was for an unlimited period of time.”
[Encyclopedia of the Quran, Expeditions and Battles]
January 19th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
It’s OK, he seems to have dropped this topic at least, but he’ll spring up with exactly the same stuff on another one soon en…. oh, he did already? Bloody heck, that was a seamless transfer! He’s getting good at this…
January 20th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Unfortunate story of religious bigotry.
Sadly, these stories are the norm in the Muslim world. And, in reality, these fatwas wear thin the claims of Muslim-Christian solidarity.
Of course, since the scholar who issued this fatwa undoubtedly condemned the Alexandria suicide bomb attack, he would have been considered a moderate by our naive Western media:
Question: A bus driver occasionally drives Christians to their churches to perform religious rites. He then goes to the mosque and performs his prayers. When they finish their rites, he drives them back home. Of course he doesn’t always do this, but he does do it sometimes. At times he also drives Christian dance teams, who are performing some rites associated with Christian holidays. What is the ruling on all of this?
Fatwa: Praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon the prophet of Allah, and on his family and companions, etc.
It is not permissible for this man to drive Christians to their churches, nor to drive those who dance on their holidays. For if the Christians are confessing their religion, it is not permissible to support them in their vain and perverted rites and religion. This is according to the saying of the Most High: “Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour” [Qur'an 5:2]. This is the general view, which is contrary to the view of the Hanafis, who hold that it is permissible to do such things for employment.
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=147523&Option=FatwaId
vain and perverted rites
January 20th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Jihad Bob,
You have nothing to learn. You will keep on spinning anything negative that you find about an adherent to Islam and keep on ignoring anything positive you find. The word used to describe people like you in the Quran is “ignorant”. Here is a verse describing people like you:
Part 6, Verse 111
“Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in God’s plan. But most of them are ignorant.”
And here is how I am instructed to deal with people like you:
Part 7, Verse 199
“Keep to forgiveness (O Muhammad), and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant.”
Happy trolling. May God give you guidance.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Trololol…
January 20th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Unfortunate story of religious bigotry.
Story of JihadBob’s life.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:40 am
“This is the general view, which is contrary to the view of the Hanafis, who hold that it is permissible to do such things for employment.”
The Hanafi school of thought allows this and it is the largest Sunni school of thought followed by the greatest number of Muslims, hence your claim that this is the “norm” throughout the Muslim world is incorrect. It is interesting how your translation, which I can see is from some “counter-Jihadi” website (Islamophobistan has exploded with excitement over this e-fatwa) does not translate further from this point.
But this is proof of your blatant hypocrisy. Why are you whining about one Muslim scholar on one Muslim website disrespecting your religion, calling it “vain and perverted”, when you follow Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer, who refers to Fasting as the “daily starve-indulge-sleep cycle” and Sheik Yer Mami, who refers to Salat as a “Mohammedan Butt Show”. If Islamophobes describe key Muslim practices in these disgusting terms then they have no right to complain about their practices being referred to in the same way. Islamophobes who remain respectful, which is impossible since if you were respectful you wouldn’t be an Islamophobe, can complain.
Also, the scholar did not ask the driver to blow himself up in a Church, only to refrain from aiding them in their idolatry. This obliterates your arguments that Islam requires that all non-Muslims who don’t accept Islam must be killed or that Muslims are in a constant state of war with non-Muslims. Loon fail.
The views of one scholar on one website and stupid, ignorant Islamophobes take that to mean all 1.57 billion Muslims, of whom a couple thousand operate as Taxi drivers in the West, are not allowed to drive a Christian to a church. Considering that I’m a Hanafi and that the site itself mentions that Hanafis are allowed to do so means that me and the hundreds of millions who follow the Hanafi school of thought can drive Christians to Churches.
So if you ever need a ride to a Church…
January 20th, 2011 at 10:58 am
Jihadbob, I have yet to meet anyone else so oblivious, so unaware, so immune to reason that he cannot even comprehend the immensity of his utter stupidity, to the extent that he ignores the thousands of words written obliterating his claims on this thread alone, and returns to the very same thread in which his entire argument was torn apart to post something entirely random, as if this new claim would be sufficient to make us forget his past failures.
Jihadbob, you are, as the Quran so beautifully puts it, “Deaf, dumb and blind” and one who has “purchased error [in exchange] for guidance”. Your transaction will bring you no profit.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:43 am
But this is proof of your blatant hypocrisy. Why are you whining about one Muslim scholar on one Muslim website disrespecting your religion, calling it “vain and perverted”, when you follow Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer, who refers to Fasting as the “daily starve-indulge-sleep cycle” and Sheik Yer Mami, who refers to Salat as a “Mohammedan Butt Show”.
Don’t forget how Robert Spencer conflated two totally different words, nikah and neik, in order to compare Muslim marriage to an obscene word referring to a sexual act. He even called Muslim marriage “a very degraded idea”, and said that he wouldn’t say the English equivalent of the Arabic word in “polite company”. However, as Loonwatch proved, he’s either lying or ignorant in all his aforementioned claims.
Under Fire Spencer Loses His Cool: “F**k CAIR!”
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/update-under-fire-spencer-loses-his-cool-fk-cair/
January 20th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
The Hanafi school of thought allows this and it is the largest Sunni school of thought followed by the greatest number of Muslims, hence your claim that this is the “norm” throughout the Muslim world is incorrect.
My view that accepted bigotry against Christians is the norm in the Muslim world is wrong because the Hanafis believe that it’s acceptable to transport Christians to their ‘dens of polytheism’ where they may practice their ‘vain and perverted’ religion?
I’m afraid you’re missing the trees for the forest.
Also, the scholar did not ask the driver to blow himself up in a Church
Yes, I’ve learned that intolerance and bigotry without going to the extreme of calling for the death of one or a group of people is an attribute of a moderate Muslim.
January 20th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Hey Jihad Bob since you are the epitome of generosity and religious harmony and since you are losing sleep over this fatwa, I suggest instead of sitting on your mighty fat behind and trolling here why don’t you transport some old people, who don’t have transport, to Churches in your city?
January 20th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
@JihadBob
You ignored my citation of the Encyclopedia of the Quran that completely contradicts your claims. Spencer is misusing verse 9:5. I think you know that well.
January 20th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
“My view that accepted bigotry against Christians is the norm in the Muslim world is wrong because the Hanafis believe that it’s acceptable to transport Christians to their ‘dens of polytheism’ where they may practice their ‘vain and perverted’ religion?”
You missed my point. If the Hanafi madhab allows this to happen, and it is followed my hundreds of millions of Muslims since it is the largest school of thought, then how can you say this is the “norm” throughout the Muslim world. Muslim taxi drivers regularly take Christian passengers with no care if they go to a Church or to the pub to drink alcohol, and many of these taxi drivers are devout Muslims. Though if they are Pakistani or Indian they will most likely be Hanafis. It may be the norm in the place where the Muslims are aware of this scholar’s conclusion and follow his school of thought and accept his reasoning.
Why do you act like these opinions are representative of all of Islam and that this is a uniquely Islamic thing.
What about journalist Christina Patterson who found that in Stamford Hill (Jewish part of London) “goyim were about as welcome in Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention”. Once she published that in an article in the Independent, the Simon Wiesenthal centre called her an anti-semite. Merely for noticing that extremist Jews are intolerant of goyim and believe it to be part of their religion. In the same article she also criticised the practice of FGM in Muslim countries, but no one called her an Islamophobe.
And how can we forget the Jewish extremists in peace loving, only-democracy-in-the-Middle-East Israel who forbade their followers from renting to Arabs and informing them of any Jew who dares violate this rule, believing this to be the decree of the Torah. I would be absolutely anti-semitic if I insisted that this is truly the practice of Judaism and that Jews cannot rent to non-Jews.
But then why do you insist that this one fatwa is representative of all Muslims. If you take this one fatwa as evidence of Islam being an intolerant religion, then you must also take the Rabbis’ “fatwa” as evidence Judaism is an intolerant religion. Can you see the problem?
“Yes, I’ve learned that intolerance and bigotry without going to the extreme of calling for the death of one or a group of people is an attribute of a moderate Muslim.”
But you admit that the Islamophobes’ conclusion that Muslims must be in a permanent state of warfare with non-Muslims is incorrect. And that it is not necessary to kill anyone who does not believe in Islam. Good, now go tell Spencer.
January 20th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
“You ignored my citation of the Encyclopedia of the Quran that completely contradicts your claims. Spencer is misusing verse 9:5. I think you know that well.”
Of course he knows that. But when he is faced with evidence he has no choice but to run away.
January 20th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I like the part where Bob projects his own traits, namely intolerance and bigotry, onto over a billion people. Quite disturbing how he can do that. It’s clear that he hates all Muslims, not just terrorists. The loon also doesn’t understand why taking one Muslim’s post on some corner of the internet and pretending that it’s indicative of all Muslims is fallacious. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though, because judging the entire Muslim world on the actions of a few pretty much typifies Islamophobic mentality.
Deaf, dumb, and blind indeed.
January 20th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Be it Muslim terrorism, Christo-Terrorism or Sanadhan Dharma Terrorism (Vedanta Terrorism), it should be condemned.
January 20th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Of course he knows that. But when he is faced with evidence he has no choice but to run away.
Indeed!
January 20th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Apologies for the length, I hope this manages to go through as I believe it will be useful for all.
Although extremely off topic (once again due to shifting goalposts and dodging questions by JihadBob), I have reproduced the fatwa below in full for those who can’t read Arabic and also for JihadBob, who seems to imply by linking to the Arabic that he can, instead of linking to all the anti-Islam sites which seem to be the only ones pasting the translation round and round in a chain. It’s actually quite a long fatwa that argues its particular point. It’s academically dishonest of the translators to not include it all, whether ultimately agreeing or disagreeing with it. My comments are after, with key parts highlighted in the text by bold.
—————————-
Fatwa Number: 147523
Title of the Fatwa: The Ruling Regarding Transporting Christians to Churches
Date of Fatwa: 19/1/2011
Question
A bus driver sometimes transports Christians to their churches to perform their religious rites, then goes to the mosque to perform his prayers. When they complete their rites, he takes them back to their homes. Of course, he doesn’t do this all the time, just sometimes. Sometimes Christian dance teams [travel] with him, performing at Christian festivals. What is the ruling in all of this?
Fatwa
All praise is to God, and peace and blessings upon the Messenger of God, his family and his companions. To begin:
It is not permissible for this man to transport Christians to their churches, or transport [Christian] dancers to their festivals. Although the Christian religion is recognised, it is not permissible for us to assist them in something connected to their rites and their false and distorted religion. And this is as God says: “Help one another to do what is right and good; do not help one another towards sin and hostility” (Qur’an 5:2). This is the opinion of the majority; the Hanafis disagree and have established the permissibility of receiving payment for such things.
It is said in [the Hanafi text] Al-Durr al-Mukhtar [written by the Grand-Mufti of Damascus, al-Haskafi (d. 1677)]: “It is permissible to reconstruct a church and carry the alcohol of a protected minority (dhimmi) by itself, or [by] animal, for a wage. There is no establishment of sin in this particular case.”
It is known that this instance is permissible according to the Hanafis, as if being hired to transport to other than the church. And the opinion of the majority is stronger; it is on the safe side and free from blame. [For] Ahmad [meaning the Hanbali school], there are consequences.
And it came in the Mudawwana [a collection of Malik's legal judgements and fatwas made by Sahnun (d. 855)]: “What’s your opinion, is it permissible for a man to hire himself for church work according to Malik?” And he said “It’s not permissible for him, because Malik said: it is not permissible for a man to hire out himself for anything which is forbidden by God.” And Malik said: “He should not rent out his home or sell it to those who would take it for a church. And he should not hire out his mount for those who would ride it to the church.”
Also found in the Mudawwana is: “What is your opinion of leasing my home to those who would take it as a church or fire-house? I am from one of the townships or villages of protected minorities.” Malik said: “I do not like that a man sells his home to those who would take it as a church; nor lease his home for those who would take it as a church. No selling of his sheep to polytheists if he knows that they will buy it to slaughter for their festivals.”
And Malik said: “No hiring of his mount to them if he knows they rent it as transport for their festivals.”
And in the Al-Iqtida’ of Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyya], God’s Mercy upon him: “The school of Ahmad [i.e. Hanbali] in leasing for work on a sarchophagus and so on, is as stated by al-Amidi [Hanbali, later a Shafi'i] (d. 1233): [it is] not permissible in any way; because the benefit/utility is connected to something prescribed. This is as well as hiring out to build a church, synagogue or hermitage, like taking a wage to write their distorted books. And on the issue of carrying alcohol, the dead, and pork of Christians, or a Muslim, the word of Ahmad provides [an answer]. He said: ‘Whoever carries wine, pork, or a dead Christian: he returns it, [including] what he has taken from his hire. And if it is a Muslim, it is more.” [فهو يكره أكل كرائه, ولكن يقضي للحمال بالكراء , وإذا كان للمسلم فهو أشد - this particular passage is a bit hard for me to translate directly]
And in it, know that this man taking a wage for himself to transport the Christians to their churches is not permissible according to the majority, as is not celebrating their festivals. He must make repentance to God Most High from his actions, and refrain from initiating it further. The transport of Christians to other than their churches, such as their homes and other than that, where there is no benefit to them regarding their disbelief, is permitted with no restrictions. And as for what he obtained from hiring previously, we hope that there is no difficulty on him in using it, as was previously mentioned by Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyya] from Imam Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] that requires wages to be earned for hiring only for [religiously sound] benefits.
The Mufti: Fatwa Centre
—————–
I have no idea where you got “vain” from Bob – or rather, the translator. They use it as if to convey the idea that this particular Mufti (with no name, link to profile or any such thing) somehow views Christians as converned with appearance and niceties! “Al-Batil” (الباطل) is used to denote something false or incorrect. And “al-muharraf” (المحرف) means something distorted or corrupted. See Hans Wehr, p. 63 and 169, respectively. “Al-batil” can mean “vain”, but in the sense that it is something done in vain, i.e. ultimately futile. So it’s a theological postulate the Mufti is professing, that all religions other than Islam are “in vain”; much the same as other religous traditions feel about everyone else too. No big deal.
Now, this fatwa provides a number of illuminating points, but that is only if you know how the genre works. Fatwas are not binding, and they are only binding upon the petitioner if they feel convinced that the Mufti has acted with due diligence to the question at hand. Quite often we find examples of people getting counter fatwas and so forth, before settling on an issue. Islamic Legal Interpretations edited by Masud, Messick and Powers, and Powers’ own Law, Society, and Culture in the Maghrib discusses this clearly. As does Jackson’s Islamic Law and the State for that matter.
First: The Mufti is not known, and clicking the link at the bottom that says “مركز الفتوى” (Fatwa Centre) does not give any further information regarding who the scholars are, their qualifications, or their experience (publications etc.), nor the quality assurance procedures given. Compared to the pre-modern period, and even the modern period with such examples as the Dar al-Ifta’ al-Misriyya in Egypt, it is poorly presented. All in all, it’s rather worrying in my humble opinion. The link is an extremely rambling statement which mentions that all workers are supervised by PhD holders (though does not give anynames), and that they strive to uphold the Qur’an and Sunna etc. It also ironically quotes the well-known hadith that “من أُفتي بغير علم ،كان إثمه على من أفتاه” [Whoever issues fatwas without knowledge, the sin is on the issuer]. Therefore, its exact relevance, and certainly what I assume you are doing to claim it as normative for the generality of Muslims, is unclear and mistaken.
Second: The epithet “Shaykh al-Islam” being used to refer to Ibn Taymiyya immediately gives away the ideological associations of the Mufti. Only Wahhabi and Salafi scholars use that title for Ibn Taymiyya; it normally refers to the famed Shafi’i jurist Zakariyya al-Ansari, and a few other scholars. Now, my personal opinion is against both of these schools in the vast majority of things, but even then, to claim that they represent “the majority”, is an uphill battle that the Mufti faces, and moreso for the Islamophobes who use such statements in their own writings. Even those who quote Ibn Taymiyya from either the traditional or modernist “camps” (for want of a better description), do not usually use this epithet. The fact that the Mufti cites Ahmad ibn Hanbal from Ibn Taymiyya, who also cites a jurist that switched schools from Hanbali to Shafi’i (and is known for the latter more), is also telling.
Third: by stating “the majority” (al-jumhur) in the text, the Mufti is arguing his case. The Mufti is basically saying “I side with the majority, so believe what I say” to the plebian who asked the question and those who read it afterwards. The fact that he felt obliged to quote al-Haskafi’s text shows that it is a major counterveiling opinion to be reckoned with. Considering that al-Haskafi’s text itself and its famous later commentary by Ibn ‘Abidin (d. 1836) Al-Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar is still widely studied and considered the de-facto later Hanafi position in all Hanafi countries, including Turkey, the Balkans, South Asia (India and Pakistan), the Levant (Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Palestine), and even Iraq – which were all under Ottoman authority – the Mufti has to argue his case strongly. In my humble opinion, he fails, but my opinion is of little relevance anyway. Of course, other juristic schools are all represented in each country, especially in urban centres, but it was the Hanafi school which was decisive in promulgating law due to its status in the Ottoman Empire. This was even the case in Egypt in recent history, although it has been a Shafi’i stronghold for centuries. Ironically, then, the major areas in the Muslim world with Christian populations were all predominantly Hanafi regarding law.
Quoting a short statement or two of Malik does not do justice to his school. That the Mufti did not even quote the opinions found in the major later Maliki works such as Mukhtasar al-Khalil and its commentaries such as that of al-Dardir (d. 1786) or later fatwa collections, is telling. These are more representative of the later Maliki school. The fact that he did not investigate this thoroughly – even if they did ultimately agree with Malik’s initial assessment – shows a lack of diligence and is a disservice to the school. This is especially true considering that he quotes al-Haskafi (d. 1677) and Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), plus al-Amidi (d. 1233), who are mid to late representatives of their schools, respectively. Also telling is that there is no statement from the Shafi’i school whatsoever, unless the Mufti views al-Amidi to represent both. If he really wanted to show “the majority”, he would have cited opinions from all the 4 Sunni schools, not just 3.
Fourth: A number of key terms are used in the text, which have particular resonance with the Wahhabi/Salafi approach. One example is the term I translated as “free from blame” (al-bara’), which is part of the commonly used term “loyalty and disassociation” (al-wara wa al-bara’). For them, this means disassociating oneself completely from anything considered corrupt or blameworthy, whether political, ideological, social or religious. And it does not only refer to non-Muslims, but any Muslims who are considered innovators or doing blameworthy things (Sufism and the Shi’a, for example).
Fifth: By not presenting the entire fatwa, the site “translating” it projects undue harshness on the Mufti. He makes clear at the end that transporting Christians anywhere except to Church or religious festivities is absolutely permissible with no issue.
Ultimately, I don’t understand what you were trying to either prove or convey regarding linking to the fatwa. It’s one of the many hundreds (thousands?) on the internet covering a wide range of issues, with little to no information as to the authority and provenance behind them. It is not from one of the major books of any school – unless we perhaps view the Wahhabi/Salafi approach as distinct from the Hanbali – and the fact that this type of situation happens all the time in the Middle East (Damascus, Amman, Cairo, Beirut…) shows that the Mufti is projecting an imagined reality into the world, instead of dealing with the facts as they are.
January 20th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Exactly what I suspected Dawood. I thought it was a wahhibi/salfi stance to begin with and the translation was suspicious to say the least, it was far to short. And again, the ‘schollar’ qualifications were very dubious, this in my view instantly invalidates the fatwa. It reeks of lack of confidence that they didn’t put their name, perhaps the aforementioned Hadith (about false hadith being the responsibility of the issuer) made them think twice.
But of course, the usual suspects will keep this going round and round and round. Did you email your reply to Spencer or whoever published this?
January 20th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
What is the point of a fatwa without a name on it? Do we take our religion from anyone on the street with an internet connection?
January 20th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
The quote by JihadBob was taken from a site called “Translating Jihad” (which I won’t link here so as not to give it traffic). I posted a modified version of the above translation and other comments there in 4 parts on the relevant thread, though it does not appear to have been approved yet (I have hopes that it will). Just letting you all know. I am also going to email my response to the contact address.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Whoops, just noticed a couple of mistakes in my translation, due to my poor eyesight and misreading a few key words.
The second paragraph of the translated fatwa should read at the end: “And the opinion of the majority is stronger; it is on the safe side, free from blame, and of a more praiseworthy end.”
And the second-last paragraph from the fatwa [that I mentioned trouble rendering] should read: “He said: ‘Whoever carries wine, pork, or a dead Christian: it is disliked for him to eat from the money of his hire, but the carrier is legally given that money.””
January 20th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Oops again, at at the end “And if it is a Muslim, it is more [blameworthy].”