For several years, pseudo-scholar Robert Spencer of JihadWatch has claimed that he would be willing to debate any “Leftist or Muslim” to defend his arguments. For example, on the 13th of June 2010, Spencer bellowed:
The list of the Leftist and Muslim academics and apologists who have refused my challenge to debate is very long; they know they can’t refute what I say on the basis of evidence, so they resort to broad-based smears and personal attacks — and haughty refusals to debate.
Just a few days later on June 17th, I responded by accepting Spencer’s debate challenge:
Danios of LoonWatch Accepts Robert Spencer’s Challenge to a Debate
…
I accept your challenge, Spencer. I agree to a radio debate with you on the topic of jihad and “dhimmitude”, namely chapters 1-4 of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock.
Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear? My guess is that you “know [you] can’t refute what I say” and will “resort to…haughty refusals to debate.”
I predict that the JW minions will give excuses to explain away why their master Robert Spencer will refuse to debate me, instead of urging him to enter into a debate as they always do with other people who challenge his ideas. They already know that Spencer does not stand a chance in a debate with me, which is why they will continue to generate excuses to exonerate him from his intellectual cowardice. This is because deep down inside they know–as does everyone else who has followed his and my writings–what the outcome would be.
Spencer backing down from a debate with me would be curious, considering that he has already conceded that my writings are “rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response.” Spencer, are you saying that you can debate with people so long as they don’t give you a substantive response, in which case you flee?
As most readers are aware, LoonWatch has become the most popular anti-Islamophobia website, giving birth to a sister site called SpencerWatch. In fact, LoonWatch won the Brass Crescent Award in 2010 and I (Danios) won the Brass Crescent Award for Best Writer in 2011. The people have spoken, and they clearly want to see a debate between Spencer and I.
To this effect, Ahmed Rehab, Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago, asked Robert Spencer in October of 2010 why he was dodging the debate with me. A few days later, Spencer issued a furious response, in which he said:
Debating such a compromised and dishonest individual would be a waste of time
I responded to this saying:
Isn’t that the exact same reasoning that Rehab gave for refusing to debate you, Spencer? The same reasoning you were so opposed to and called cowardice?
Spencer needs another excuse to weasel out of a debate with me. What will it be? Aha! It will be my anonymity! As many of you know, I write anonymously under a pseudonym. Spencer and his fellow fans desperately want to know who I am. Some of them are convinced I am XYZ, and others that I am ABCD. Some have even engaged in textual analysis, trying extremely hard to find out who this cursed Danios is. My question is: who cares? Deal with my arguments, not who I am. Spencer says:
…Since Rehab invokes [Danios] and others have referred to his site [LoonWatch] recently, I am willing: if “Danios of Loonwatch” reveals his real name…
Spencer places this condition on me, knowing full well that I will refuse to reveal my name, since he knows that I like writing anonymously.
On November 1st, 2010, I posted another response:
JihadWatch, a vitriolic hate site run by pretend scholar Robert Spencer, has propelled itself to the forefront of the Islamophobic movement in the United States. The fear-mongering Spencer has used his hate site to demonize Islam and Muslims. To bolster his credibility, Robert Spencer had long ago issued an open challenge to “Muslims and leftists” to debate his ideas.
I accepted Spencer’s challenge to a debate on June 17th, 2010. Since then, several influential Muslim-American spokesmen have expressed their interest in such a debate between Spencer and I. This includesAhmed Rehab (Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago), who issued a scathing statement against Spencer. However, it has now been over 135 days since I accepted Robert Spencer’s challenge. JihadWatch has generated excuse after excuse as to why this radio debate cannot take place.
The latest set of excuses was that I must reveal who I am before a debate can take place. Spencer issued this pre-condition knowing full well that I value my anonymity too much to do that. He naturally thought that this was a creative way to get out of a debate with me while at the same time saving face. Said Spencer:
Sorry, I don’t debate fictional characters or pseudonyms. “Danios of Loonwatch” can go debate Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins.
This is of course strange since Hugh Fitzgerald, the Vice President of JihadWatch since 2004, himself operates under an anonymous pseudonym. Fitzgerald is a co-administrator of the site, alongside Spencer. Is Fitzgerald then a “fictional character” who is only worthy of debate with Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins?
If that is the case, I challenge Hugh Fitzgerald–co-administer and Vice President of JihadWatch–to a radio debate. The topic will be Jihad, “Dhimmitude”, and Taqiyya (Stealth Jihad), namely chapters 1-4 of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).
Hugh Fitzgerald of JihadWatch uses a pseudonym like myself, and he remains completely anonymous like myself. Surely two “fictional characters” are worthy of debating each other, right?
Now what excuse will be generated by JihadWatch to avoid this debate with LoonWatch? I can just see Robert Spencer’s brain churning in order to generate a reason to get out of this one. The truth is that JihadWatch is a bully, and as soon as someone steps up to a bully and delivers a solid punch to the mouth, the bully backs down like the coward he is.
That was where we last left off, with Robert Spencer coming up with the excuse of my anonymity to dodge a radio debate with me. In other words, it has been 572 days since I issued my radio debate challenge–and Spencer has never manned up.
Until now?
Just yesterday, Robert Spencer posted an article with the title of “Why can’t Muslims debate? (Again)”, saying:
For example, an Islamic supremacist hate site that defames me and lies about what I say regularly charged that I was refusing to debate them:
I responded by repeating yet again something I had reiterated several times in the preceding weeks, when other Muslims had thrown up this site to me:
No response to that at all.
A simple Google search will reveal how this is a great big lie. Spencer has adamantly refused to engage in a radio debate with LoonWatch and me in particular, using my anonymity as a face-saving excuse.
Do his recent tweets reflect a change in attitude or is he still cowering in fear of me? Spencer, are you willing to back your words with action and “debate [me] anytime”? I will debate the accuracy of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), with regard to the topics of jihad, “dhimmitude”, and taqiyya. Are you ready to defend your arguments or not?
I think most of us anticipate “no response to that at all.”
Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Why doesn’t Spencer just agree to debate Danios on Frontpage Magazine symposium like he debates others such as Khaleel Mohammad and Asad Abu’Khalil? This way Danios’s anonymity is protected and the debate is intact simultaneously. For instance, Frontpage Magazine invited the anonymous blogger Ali Sina to a debate and no one still knows to this day who he really is. Frontpage also invited Ibn Warraq once to debate and no one still knows what his real name is.
I see a debate on Frontpage Magazine symposium as a win-win situation.
Somebody needs to hand Spencer a real smack-down (verbally and in a debate format). Spencer has created this illusion that he is invincible tearing Muslim apologists apart. That illusion needs to be broken. Reza Aslan did it once and Danios can do it to.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:04 am
Robert Spencer will not debate against you. Actually, I don’t think any shrewd Islamophobe will. It is the likes of FFA, AAH, Terry Jones etc. who are too stupid to see their own hypocrisy and incompetence that will jump off a cliff like that.
However, I will not stop trying to goad him into a debate, knowing that he will not accept, just to show his minions that their master is nothing but a charlatan.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Danios: I don’t think Robert Spencer should waste his time with you.Dr.Ali sina has challeged Muslims on faith freedom.org to debate with him and win 50,000 dollars as well.I know you won’t even contemplate that because you know very well that Islam has no legs to stand on.It is as fake as its prophet.Just stay in your hole as Danios.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:29 am
@Danios,
If Spencer were to even try to debate you, you would destroy him. I can imagine why he’s afraid. After all you have access to the most powerful weapon in the universe. The Muslimic Ray Gun!
January 10th, 2012 at 11:35 am
UPDATE: We’ve been having a tweet exchange w/Spencer. He is agreeing to debate us finally. Hopefully he doesn’t pussy-foot and back out. We are going to EXPOSE his lies, his hypocrisy, his pseudo-scholarship.
Get ready Spencer to get smacked down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 10th, 2012 at 11:41 am
Please post the debate, i gotta this
January 10th, 2012 at 11:42 am
SEE this
January 10th, 2012 at 11:51 am
Truth Seeker, Danios is not a Muslim. So he is not interested in debating whether Islam is the word of God. Therefore, why would he debate with Ali Sina. Danios wants to debate Spencer – if Spencer is so sure of what he says, surely he will take up the challenge.
As for Ali Sina, his challenge is stupid. It’s a bit like me saying “I will give 100,000 to anyone that proves nothing can go faster than light”. Of course, this can never be proved. What can be proved is that a lot of what Ali Sina says is complete rubbish and has already been refuted out there. And that Ali Sina has a hatred of Islam because he is a secular nationalistic Persian who hates the fact that the Arabs were able to conquer them.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Lol this will be rich…
January 10th, 2012 at 11:54 am
@Truth Seeker,
As a non Muslim myself, I don’t agree with Muslims when it comes to the truth of the claims made in the Qur’an or Hadith Literature. However, regardless of weather Islam is true or not, People like you and Robert Spencer don’t have any legs to stand on. For one thing there’s absolutely no compelling evidence for a massive Stealth Jihad conspiracy. Its just paranoia. If there really were large numbers of Muslims calling for theocracy in America, organizations like Americans United For The Separation of Church and State would openly oppose them, along with “The Southern Poverty Law Center” which actually has written things about some real American Muslim extremists.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Muwahahahaa finally the day has arrived. I’m kind of nervous about this. Not that I doubt Danios’ ability to tear spencers arguments into swiss cheese but the fact that he has agreed means they have something up their sleeve. not intellectually, but just something else. Maybe I’m being paranoid but I can probably guess spencers rebuttals…”your a liar” “you see taqqiya in action” “your just a dhimmi who does not realize he is being used by the MUZZlim Galactic FEDERATION empire!!!!1111!!”
January 10th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
@Solid Snake,
Don’t worry, if Robert Spencer tries that, and he may well, it will just make him look bad. Insulting people is not an argument, besides, due to his alliance with Muslims Dianos will be able to use the Muslamic Ray gun to vaporize him, if Robert Spencer tries anything!
January 10th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
January 10th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Finally, the day is approaching! Our very own Danios, tastefully adorned in cloak and mask, can give testimony to the wonders of the glorious Religion of Peace! The boundless tolerance of Islam, its delightful intellectual curiosity, its loving embrace of gays, its bottomless respect for Jews, its benign paternal shepherding of women, and its eagerness to lead the world into a far, far, better tomorrow. Go get ‘em, Danios!
January 10th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Thank you Danios, great work, and good luck,
This fake scholar needs to be shown for what he is. However, don’t think it will affect his fans, because they only like him because he says what they want to hear, and not what the truth is.
Finally…
January 10th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
CriticalDragon117
As a non Muslim myself, I don’t agree with Muslims when it comes to the truth of the claims made in the Qur’an or Hadith Literature.
That’s fine, because Islam itself gives freedom of religion. This isn’t about proving if Islam is the truth, because faith cannot be proved. It exists in your heart. Even whent he Almighty works his will, he does it through nature. Thus, those who want to deny that God parted the Red Sea or that Prophet Mohammed didn’t visit Jannah on a unicorn, have the right to disbelieve it and still make sense. The Red Sea parting can be explained away by tsunami or underwater earthquake , and the Prophet’s journey to heaven as dream. As I said, the Almighty works his will through nature. Otherwise there would be no freedom of religion, if everything had a miracle that couldn’t be explained by the non believer through nature.
It all makes sense. In Islam at least.
But this isn’t about proving the truth about Islam. It’s about how Islamohobes like Spencer deliberately distort the meanings of the Quran, Hadeeth, and Sunnah.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
@Truth Seeker
Ali Sina would never accept a debate with anyone because he knows he would become severely bankrupt! He owes at least several million US Dollars to people who have won his challenges! I know being a Zionist Islamophobe is the easiest way to become super rich due to all the funding you get but paying back several million US Dollars is still a tall order for someone like Ali Sina!
January 10th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
LOL. About time. I’ll be buying ring side seats to this debate.
I’ll enjoy watchin LW take this loser apart and see this loser resort to desperate smear tactics when everything falls apart for him
January 10th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Ahmed, just an FYI… amongst other things there is the so called ‘Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly’ which was tested last year (small sub atomic particles were found to travel a distance faster than light was) but I agree with you.
Once, and I think it was here, I said that a certain anti-Islam person would argue the sky wasn’t blue if it meant ‘refuting Islam’. And low and behold… he tried to argue that the sky wasn’t blue.
And I like how Mr Pork insists that Ali Sina is a doctor, as if that makes what he says true
As a mater of fact many have debated with Mr Sina and conclusively ‘beaten’ him, only for Mr Sina to either change the goal posts or edit the email exchanges. I get asked to ‘debate’ such people… frankly why bother… but anyway, this one with Mr Spencer should be interesting enough.
Jack
January 10th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
@Inspired by Mohammad,
You wrote,
—————————————————————————–
But this isn’t about proving the truth about Islam. It’s about how Islamohobes like Spencer deliberately distort the meanings of the Quran, Hadeeth, and Sunnah.
—————————————————————————–
I agree, but based on what he wrote, In the eyes of “Truth Seeker,” there really is no difference between the two. I was basically pointing out to him that there is a difference.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
I’ve only seen Robert Spencer debate one person before and thats the guy who wrote the ‘lies about muhammed’ book.
If you do get a chance to debate spencer, could you ask him why it took him 23 years (he broke out in 2003) to publish something on jihad when he claims he’s been studying the religion since 1980? could you ask him where he was before 9/11?
January 10th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Truthseeker, who exactly judges whether Ali Sina “wins” or “loses” the debate? Ah, that would be Sina himself, who has $50,000 at stake in conceding defeat.
It’s quite easy for me to promise anyone who can prove the world is round $50,000, but all I need to do to keep hold of my $50,000 is decide that I won the debate. Truth Seeker, you shouldn’t fall for such transparent “challenges”. The easiest way to detect Ali Sina’s fraud is by checking his “debate” with Montazeri- I don’t need to even begin to refer to the people who claim he deletes their responses, all I need to do is look at that one “debate” and you can tell how deceptive he is.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I concur @Solid Snake, I see a great possibility of that taking place, since its only befitting for liars and full of crap specimen like Spence to uses such ill tactics to drown their apparent weaknesses, as shouting, interrupting, insulting are the only weapons they have at their disposal to cover truth. So I think Danios should require a timetable segment where each will express their views without the other interrupting, or shouting over the other during the time assigned to each, and the preconditions to eliminate all unnecessarily and baseless insults, or accusations that will divert from the debate. But since we all know how the deceitful Spency operates, I don’t think there much chance that happening.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
@Believing Atheist
“Why doesn’t Spencer just agree to debate Danios on Frontpage Magazine symposium like he debates others such as Khaleel Mohammad and Asad Abu’Khalil?”
It’s good that Spencer finally grew a pair and agreed to debate Danios. But I don’t think Fronpage Magazine is a good place to have it. They have tendency of stacking the deck over there. For example, they had a debate between two Muslims (Edip Yuksel and Thomas Haidon) and two Islamophobes (Robert Spencer and Bill Warner). However, the “moderator”, Jamie Glazov, was clearly biased. So it was more like two Muslims against three Islamophobes. Despite the odds, Yuksel and Haidon made short work of them.
Realizing their poor performance, Frontpage Magazine did a follow up debate. And they stacked the deck even more. It was supposed to be between three Muslims (Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, and Khalid Massoud) and three Islamophobes (Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, and Abul Kasem). However, one of the “Muslims”, Khalim Massoud, of Muslims Against Sharia, consistently sided with the Islamophobes. And the “moderator”, Jamie Glazov, was still biased. So it was more like two Muslims against five Islamophobes. But, again, despite the odds, Yuksel and Haidon made short work of them. In another debate, on Faithfreedom.whatever, Yuksel made short work of Ali Sina.
The first two debates you can still find on Frontpage Magazine (I think). There’s a version of the debate between Yuksel and Sina on Sina’s website. However, I think Sina recognized that he didn’t do so well. So it’s heavily edited. You can find all three debates (including the unedited one between Yuksel and Sina) in Yuksel’s book “Peacemaker’s Guide to Warmongers”:
http://www.amazon.com/Peacemakers-Guide-Warmongers-Exposing-Horowitz/dp/0979671531?&linkCode=waf&tag=19.org
“This way Danios’s anonymity is protected and the debate is intact simultaneously. For instance, Frontpage Magazine invited the anonymous blogger Ali Sina to a debate and no one still knows to this day who he really is. Frontpage also invited Ibn Warraq once to debate and no one still knows what his real name is.”
I don’t think Danios’ anonymity was ever really an issue. It was just an excuse Spencer used to avoid debating Danios. And it wasn’t a very good excuse either. If Spencer believed people who debate anonymously were bad, why did he agree to the debate with Bill Warner, Abul Kasem, and Khalim Massoud? Bill Warner is actually Bill French. And, as Bill French pointed out, Khalim Massoud is actually a dude named Alex Dobin. And Muslims Against Sharia was just a front for Frontpage Magazine:
http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/fraudulent-muslims-against-sharia-group-and-khalim-massoud-aka-alex-dobin-were-created-by-right-wing-extremists-at-frontpagemag-com/
Don’t ya just love it when Islamophobes fight amongst themselves? And don’t ya just love the Delicious irony of Bill French calling someone else a right wing extremist?
January 10th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
TAMPA –
Sami Osmakac would visit local mosques, say he was the only good Muslim in the building and tell other worshippers they were infidels.
Osmakac showed no respect to religious elders, who tried to steer him away from his extremist beliefs, community leaders said.
He repeatedly threatened one civil activist for encouraging Muslims to vote and promoting democracy.
That’s the picture the local Muslim community paints of the 25-year-old Osmakac, who was arrested over the weekend, accused of trying to obtain guns and explosives to blow up clubs, bars and a law enforcement agency in Tampa.
Osmakac was such a disruptive element to the Muslim community that people considered a conference to discuss diffusing what they called “a ticking time bomb,” said local civil rights activist Ahmed Bedier.
“Before the general public was harmed, he was threatening Muslims and Muslim leaders,” said Bedier, president of United Voice for America. “This kid has very radical views. If Muslims see radicals in the community, they will be reported.”
The Muslim community was instrumental in providing information that led to Osmakac’s arrest, federal authorities said.
“This case is not about the Muslim religion,” Tampa FBI Chief Steven E. Ibison said. “It’s not about the Muslim community. It’s about an individual” accused of trying to commit a violent crime, he said.
Bedier said he became aware of Osmakac when the Pinellas Park resident showed up at Bedier’s speaking engagements and started challenging the activist on his democratic views.
“Sometimes I’ll go to faith centers and talk about the importance of voting,” said Bedier, the former director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Tampa. “He was there, in a group of two or three people, and told me that promoting democracy is anti-Islam. They told me, ‘If you speak about democracy at mosques again, we’ll hurt you.’”
=======================
Muslim community step up again to deal with there own no CIA FBI spy needed
January 10th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Video: Fla. Plot Suspect Arrested with Help of Muslim Community (CAIR)
January 10th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
/\ guess that is why they took it off the yahoo front page
January 10th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
My guess is that Spencer will find a way to back out of this one too. He has too much to lose, all of the money, the fame among his adoring worshipers, the cute pictures with Pamela Geller, whom he probably secretly loves but doesn’t have the nerve to tell her, etc. This debate would humiliate him.
January 10th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
OH Brother! This again?
So Danios is going to smite Robert Spencer with his mighty tu quoque.
Boring.
January 10th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Spencer is going to try and weasel his way out of it. That’s what he does, acts tough, runs from debate, and then tries to declare victory.
January 10th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Meanwhile, in another news. Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Sharia.
http://claremoreprogress.com/local/x2145130769/Sharia-law-ban-blocked-by-federal-court
January 10th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
He must be getting desperate for publicity and/or business if he’s finally agreeing to it.
January 10th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
@Michael Elwood,
I read the debate between Yuksel and Robert Spencer and co the second time I believe and it appears that he Yuksel lost at least in my view.
Kasem said to Yuksel:
“Mr. Yuksel, please tell me why must I not trust the most celebrated exegetes of the Koran, such as Jalalyn, ibn Abbas, ibn Kathir, Maududi and so on? Are you claiming they are inferior to you, or that they did not understand the Koran?”
To which Yuksel replied: “Since I have to cut this short, I will invite the reader to check my translation and find the my answer to this question, which initially sounds reasonable. ”
So Yuksel basically dodged the question and did not answer it imploring the readers to read his translation.
Spencer also caught him on this and said “To this, Mr. Yuksel answers only by telling us that he has answered this question elsewhere. Great. But in a symposium discussing the reform of Qur’anic ideas and Islam in general, it would have been nice if he had deigned to favor us with his wisdom on this all-important question.”
That’s not how you win a debate.
See the entire debate here: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=30658
However, I agree with you that Danios should not go to Frontpage Magazine and debate Spencer because after reviewing this debate I found out that Jamie Glazov or whatever his name is, is indeed a bias moderator.
In my opinion Danios should instead go to Democracy Now and debate Spencer and humiliate him. DN is the same place Norman Finkelstein humiliated Alan Dershowitz and Danios is also a forensic scholar like Norman Finkelstein.
I implore everyone including Danios to watch this debate between Finkelstein and Dershowitz and use it as a template to humiliate Spencer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sws0V_pVhG4
It is serialized on Youtube. The complete debate formatted in a single video can be seen on Democracy Now.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
@ when i need a laugh i always watch the finkelstein,Dershowitz debate.Alan Dershowitz holds the Felix Frankfurter professorship at harvard …WOW ! Harvard is a joke …
January 10th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
i think this Ali Sina guy is a Hindu. His/her site has very high traffic from India and also notice the “No meat” ad there. I think these Islam-haters want to demean islam from all the angles.
January 11th, 2012 at 1:15 am
This debate will never happen. Spencer is just saying that to impress his minions who are starting to question his credibility. He will just continue to ignore LW and Danios until the whole debate challenge is forgotten.
January 11th, 2012 at 1:30 am
When Danios defeats Spencer. Jihad Watch might get shutdown.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:49 am
“In matters of style, swim with the current; In matters of principle, stand like a rock.” –Thomas Jefferson
God Luck Danios: One man with courage is a majority.
January 11th, 2012 at 8:27 am
This is a no win debate. No matter how badly Danios humiliates that fraud Spencer, Spencer will find a way to weasel out of the debate, make excuses to justify abandoning it and then him and his cronies will proclaim victory.
Debate Pam Geller instead. We all know she wears the trousers out of the 2 of them. Plus she is mentally unstable so it’ll be even more amusing to watch.
January 11th, 2012 at 9:55 am
@Believing Atheist
“I read the debate between Yuksel and Robert Spencer and co the second time I believe and it appears that he Yuksel lost at least in my view.”
I disagree. I think Yuksel and Haidon did well (considering the environment the debate took place).
“Kasem said to Yuksel:
“‘Mr. Yuksel, please tell me why must I not trust the most celebrated exegetes of the Koran, such as Jalalyn, ibn Abbas, ibn Kathir, Maududi and so on? Are you claiming they are inferior to you, or that they did not understand the Koran?’”
“To which Yuksel replied: ‘Since I have to cut this short, I will invite the reader to check my translation and find the my answer to this question, which initially sounds reasonable.’”
“So Yuksel basically dodged the question and did not answer it imploring the readers to read his translation.”
Not really. Yuksel wrote: “Since I am asked by the FP Moderator to be brief I will not be able to respond to all the spins and distortions.” Yuksel chose to answer the questions he felt he could answer in “brief”. You actually can find a lengthy answer to that question in Yuksel’s translation, however.
The question that Abul Kasem asked is one that comes up often between “Quran only” Muslims and critics of Islam. In fact, it came up in our debate about slavery in the Quran. Remember? You said you could prove that the Quran endorsed slavery. And I said that it is my experience that when critics of Islam say they can prove that the Quran endorsed this and that, what they really mean is that they can prove that commentators/tafsirs endorse this and that.
The question is fallacious because it is basically an appeal to authority. Kasem says the Quran says this and that, Yuksel disagrees. Kasem tries to bolster his point by appealing to “the most celebrated exegetes of the Koran”. Come on, Believing Atheist, you can see that fallacy from a mile away. Here are some more examples of fallacious reasoning. This isn’t an exhaustive list, by the way.
argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad antiquitatem
KASEM: “I am certain Mr. Yuksel will deny the tafsirs of ibn Abbas, Jalalyn, and ibn Kathir. But please tell us who understood the Koran better—those who were close to Muhammad (such as ibn Abbas), and those earlier Islamist scholars, or the 21st. century scholar such as you?”
argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem
JAMIE GLAZOV: “I am a bit confused. What is the name of your madhhab (school of Islamic jurisprudence)? I have never heard of it. Who established it and when? How many adherents does it have? How do you propose to convince Muslims to forsake the traditional view and follow yours?”
argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem
ROBERT SPENCER: “Not only are large numbers of Muslims ever likely to accept a drastically edited Qur’an, but they are also unlikely ever to flock to a wholesale reevaluation of Islamic theology involving the dismissal of the Hadith and Sira as ‘hearsay stories.’”
ROBERT SPENCER: “Mr. Yuksel errs when he attributes to the estimable Abul Kasem this statement: ‘He accuses Jamie Glazov of relying on ‘unreliable hearsay stories’ for information about Muhammad, but fails to inform us that the great majority of Muslims around the world rely on those same ‘unreliable hearsay stories,’ and offers no program for convincing those hundreds of millions of Muslims of the historical weakness of these stories.’ Actually, I said that, and I stand by it. Mr. Yuksel responds to this by saying, ‘If you had read the Reformist Translation or Manifesto for Islamic Reform you would learn that we offer a theologically consistent and very powerful argument to trash all those hearsay stories.’
Note that Spencer also conflates rhetorical arguments with logical arguments. Rhetorical arguments are considered valid if, and only if, they persuade. They needn’t be logical. Logical arguments are the exact opposite. They are considered valid if, and only if, their conclusions logically follow their premises. They needn’t be persuasive.
“That’s not how you win a debate.”
If you want to lose an argument, just try using the fallacious arguments I mentioned above. You don’t have to be a debate nerd like me to see the problem with that line of reasoning.
“However, I agree with you that Danios should not go to Frontpage Magazine and debate Spencer because after reviewing this debate I found out that Jamie Glazov or whatever his name is, is indeed a bias moderator.”
“In my opinion Danios should instead go to Democracy Now and debate Spencer and humiliate him. DN is the same place Norman Finkelstein humiliated Alan Dershowitz and Danios is also a forensic scholar like Norman Finkelstein.”
I don’t know where the debate is going to take place, but it will be interesting to see Spencer try to defend himself again.
January 11th, 2012 at 10:22 am
I dont think Danios will need luck I just think the deck is stacked if Blobby can manage it . Beware !
Plus I think I know the date the Spencer will insist on.
30th Feb Anyone ? check your diaries
January 11th, 2012 at 11:11 am
@BASS,
I think Ali Sina is an atheist actually. He just takes issue with meat eating for some reason. He’s a vegan from what I understand.
January 11th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
@Believing Atheist
An Addendum to the lengthy explanation by Michael:
The problem of all those arguments is that they assume the text of the Koran is supposed to have some static meaning for all times. Comparing a contemporary interpretation of Koran with the interpretation of Ibn Kathir or Ibn Abbas in matters of laws for social realm is nonsensical. I limit my discussion to the practical aspects of Sharia here. I don’t want to enter the discussion of theological or philosophical matters or ritual aspects of Sharia, which area of another calibre.
Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas, however great might be their position, are not the supreme authority. The supreme authority is Koran and the Tradition, which are not codified in matters of law. Shari’a is the principles derived from those two sources (not the literal interpretation). Scholars apply the Sharia to everyday life by interpreting it and adapting it to current circumstances.
They interpreted the text based on their own experience and according to their own
understanding. They might have made a mistake or not. Deciding about whether they made a mistake at those times is very difficult because ‘usually’ we have ‘almost’ no clue
how people lived, what were the mentalities, what was the economic conditions, etc.
There is always possibility of a historical critic, but it assumes a very deep knowledge
of the social and economical circumstances of the time. But even if they did not make a mistake, applying their conclusions literally to our circumstances would be meaningless.
Shari’a is not what they pronounced, but what principles baed on which they pronounced what they pronounced.
As an example, if any scholar in 10th century allowed girls to get married at a young age, it would be quite nonsensical to protest :”Why didn’t a Prophet of God forbid that?” This is thinking out of context, forgetting that there was no public schools and no economic future for young girls at those times, and imposing on fathers to keep their children at home far past the age of physical (and also intellectual maturity at those times) would be a foolish measure. In the absence of contraception, where people got married young and had possibly one child per year in average (with a high rate of mortality albeit), keeping all of those 10-15 children at home were just imposing a huge economic constraint on the father to feed them, and that would also lead to leaving the huge population of ‘young boys’ unmarried. This is exactly for the same reason that marriage in young age was allowed in practically all cultures around the globe, and became rare after the emergence of contraception, public schools (where young children study to gain some economic future), etc. The same phenomenon is observed in Muslim countries. In cities and modernized areas, it is practically extinct (if it is not forbidden by the local law); and nothing of this interdiction is against Sharia, even though our scholar from 10th century might have allowed it. The same arguments can be put forward about slavery, etc.
Remember that even for Koran: It is the Speech of God, but sometimes God talked
to a specific person 1400 years ago, and the fact that the Koran is eternal does not mean that those words are literally and ad infintum and in all circumstances spoken to everyone with the same ‘historical’ meanings which were valid at those times. The demand from reformists and the kind of Spencer that Muslims ‘edit’ the Koran is preposterous and arises from a deep flaw in reasoning in and a very superficial understanding of divine matters.
So, according to this reading, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, etc., are truly the great scholars.
But what makes them great is not the circumstances they lived in, it’s the method they used for their interpretation: which was methodical and thorough; nothing similar to our modern cursory impatient analysis which wants to wrap things up in 40 minutes debates
with 10 minutes back and fro short-cut arguments.
So in order to answer all those critics, one can stay a mainstream traditional Muslim and keep both The Koran and “Tradition” (which is not equal to “hadith” as hadith might be forged and is contextual) intact while adapting the laws to todays’ realities. That’s of course a delicate task and one should not rush to draw the conclusions one wishes under the social pressure. Howerver much can be done and actually is being done everyday by your mainstream ordinary Muslims who do not deny their Faith and actually know its true value.
January 11th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
@Michael Elwood and Badboo,
Thank you both for opening my eyes with such beautiful logic. Because of Michael Elwood I have become a fan of Yuksel and the Quran only movement. Where once I thought that Islam could not be reformed only secularized I know believe that it can be. Perhaps reform is not the correct word for it but I am struggling to come up with a better more realistic one. Something that means brought back to its pure and original form. Any word like that? As a gift to both Michael and Badboo I want to give you both a copy of Yuksel’s quran for free in pdf format.
https://www.irshadmanji.com/sites/default/files/PDFS/ReformistQuran.pdf
I believe Danios can use this quran as well in his upcoming debate with Psycho Spencer the psuedo-scholar.
January 11th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
As Michael Elwood has correctly stated:
Rhetorical arguments are considered valid if, and only if, they persuade. They needn’t be logical. Logical arguments are the exact opposite. They are considered valid if, and only if, their conclusions logically follow their premises. They needn’t be persuasive.
That describes a key difference between Robert Spencer’s arguments and Danios’ arguments. Spencer’s arguments are only rhetorical and not logical, therefore they can only ever persuade and never actually refute. However, Danios’ arguments are logical and can therefore refute even if they don’t actually persuade. Consequently, Spencer’s arguments are those of a “snake-oil salesman” and not those of any kind of scholar or expert. However, even so, he hasn’t actually persuaded anyone with his rhetoric, but only reinforced the pre-existing bigotry, hatred and prejudice that his supporters already had against Islam and Muslims, so he doesn’t even succeed at that.
In a real, even-leveled debate, Spencer wouldn’t stand a chance, which is why when he debates:
- It’s virtually always managed by those who agree with him/disagree with his opponent, so as to control the debate in his favor
- Has an audience full of his idiot cheerleaders, who provide nothing but obnoxious background noise, to insure that the popularity vote is always his
Like his height, Spencer can only ever come out on top when standing on something that elevates him. His expertise is only in snake oil salesmanship and nothing more.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
I am not a Muslim but I am a truth finder. I am really trying to find what’s going on. I see all the badmouthing on JW and elsewhere but it boggles my mind that we Americans don’t go to real Muslims. The 2nd largest population in the world. Anyways, from my research I also found out that in Shiites, the ruling Imam has the way of interpreting the holy book, Quran as how he deems fit according to the time of the world at large. Also, another thing I found out is they do not believe in the popular gospels masters of Sunni Muslims. So how they interpret is very different as well.
In conclusion, the more I dig the more I get confirmation that guys like Spencer et el are nothing but trouble creators. We need to build bridges not break them.
January 11th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
The ‘Quran-only’ Movement is not representative of the Islamic ethos. Muslims were never sola-scriptura – the traditions and sunnah cannot be sidelined. Besides, a ‘renewal’ of religion – ludicrous as that notion is as the pinnacle was with the Prophet peace be upon him – in this time and age, is beyond our means and capacities. God have mercy on the Muslims.
I wish Danios luck. He is the most equipped to deal with this fake-scholar and put him in his place.
January 11th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
how is it that pam geller can ignore common decency whenever she rambles on about cair http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/cair-condemns-alleged-desecration-of-dead-jihadists-by-us-marines-in-afghanistan.html geez she is disgusting.
January 12th, 2012 at 12:47 am
I’d also would love to see Danios debate Bonnie Intall(owner of BareNakedIslam). Danios would crush her in a debate as well of course.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:02 am
@Believing Atheist
I wouldn’t call it a reform or anything. I also believe in Quran only and do not follow any Tafsir, Hadith, or anything else. But I don’t consider it a reformed version of Islam, I consider it the only logical conclusion after reading the Quran multiple times. If anything it could be considered a sect, though sects are not allowed in Islam and God considers all believers as believers, even if they have different views (I don’t remember the verse numbers to show you this so I can’t reference them here).
January 12th, 2012 at 1:41 am
@ShellyLS,
I agree with you. I only wish I had never been dumb enough to believe people like Spencer.
Spencer and others like him get away with telling lies like they do for multiple reasons. One, because most westerners know little about Islam, two, Muslims are a small minority in the west, Three, people like him are able to use to the few genuine extremist Muslims which often seem like a majority to those who aren’t paying close enough attention, as a way of taring all Muslims and/or all of Islam in general as evil. I for one thing, I don’t think I would have been dumb enough to believe his stupid “stealth jihad” or “demographic jihad” conspiracy theories, if it weren’t for the post Taliban Afghan government trying to put a man to death for converting to Christian, combined with the cartoon riots European and the Middle East.
One of the biggest reasons why too few Americans go to actual Muslims and ask them what they believe instead of continually listening to anti Muslim bigots, like him, is that too many of them believe one variant or another of either the “most Muslims are liars” myth or “Islam teaches Muslims to lie for Islam” myth. Both youtubers, Klingscor and Cembadins are critics of Islam, Cembadins is even an ex Muslim, but neither of them have any respect for anti Muslim bigots like Robert Spencer. Both of them will tell you that no matter what you call it, its a myth the Muslims are more likely to lie than non Muslims. Taqqiyya and Kitmen do not mean what the anti Muslim bigots tell you it does. The Irony is that many of the leading members of the so called “anti Jihad movement” as they call it, are actually liars. There is at least one person who writes for Jihad watch who claims to be living in a Muslims country, reporting the “truth” about what’s actually going on there. For all I know, he may well be living safe and sound in some western country, far away from anything remotely Islamic. In fact, given the fact that I know now that both Spencer and his boss David Horrowitz are liars, I have good reason to suspect that anyone writing for Jihad Watch isn’t what they say they are or where they say they are.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:15 am
“SPENCER vs DANIOS” KNOCKDOWN! A cage match would be interesting. Last man standing wins the trophy! Who could do the commentary?
January 12th, 2012 at 4:29 am
ShellyLS,
You are very much correct in what you say. There are so many different ways of looking at Islam, and as far as I can see, each has it’s relative strengths and weaknesses. For instance, despite completely disagreeing with the Salafi’s on most things, I can see that their dedication to true monotheism is admirable and they’ve pretty much nailed the core of the religion in this regard.
Also on the point of the Shia, most Shia scholars- and their followers- believe that matters of political law in realm of Islam are suspended until the reappearance of the last Imam, Sistani being the primary example of such a scholar. They also believe that offensive Jihad cannot be ordained unless it’s that Imam who orders it. Basically this puts Spencers Jihad theory into a whole new light.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:35 am
Balayla Ahmad Claims Sexual Harassment, False Accusation Of Terrorism, Sues University of Bridgeport
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN 01/11/12 03:32 PM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/muslim-harassment-connecticut-university_n_1200428.html?ref=religion
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A Muslim woman is suing the University of Bridgeport, alleging that the school failed to investigate her claims that a fellow student sexually harassed her and instead retaliated by reporting her to the FBI based on a false claim that she was a terrorist.
Balayla Ahmad filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday saying that she was sexually harassed by a male student for months in 2009 and that university officials showed “deliberate indifference” to her repeated complaints. She said college officials recklessly disseminated false accusations by the harasser that they had good reason to believe were unreliable and threatened her with arrest by the FBI.
Leslie Geary, a university spokeswoman, said that the university hadn’t seen the lawsuit and that she couldn’t comment on pending litigation.
Ahmad’s lawyer, Bradford Conover, noted that his client is an observant black Muslim who regularly wears a hijab, the head covering traditionally worn by Muslim women, so her religion was obvious.
“I think, because of that, she ended up getting targeted based on some reckless accusations against her, and they completely dropped the ball on the sexual harassment,” Conover said. “They never investigated it. Had they done so, they would have discovered the accusations against her were false and she had been subject to sexual harassment.”
The threat of an FBI investigation frightened Ahmad to the point that was initially in fear of even leaving her apartment, Conover said.
“Since her academic dismissal from UB, she has suffered the humiliation and the emotional stress of having been unfairly profiled and targeted and of not being able to pursue her chosen career in medicine,” he said in a statement.
After received her master’s degree from Central Michigan University, Ahmad enrolled in the University of Bridgeport in 2008 and studied to become a chiropractor. The male student, who isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit, repeatedly made sexual advances and graphic offensive comments about wanting to have sex with her, according to the lawsuit, which seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
When she complained to a teacher, she was told that the university generally doesn’t get rid of students right away over such incidents, the lawsuit said. Another teacher asked her if she were married and asked her not to report it to the dean because he would speak with the harasser, the suit said.
Ahmad then reported the harassment and fears for her safety to the university’s president and dean, who promised to meet with her. But she said when she met with the dean, he said, “My hands are tied. What do you suggest I do?”
After reporting the sexual harassment in April 2009, Ahmad said she was approached by two university security directors who told her someone had made allegations against her and they threatened to call the FBI and have her arrested.
Later, two FBI agents knocked on Ahmad’s apartment door, questioned her and left a business card, according to the lawsuit. She said she learned that her harasser or his associates had fabricated a story falsely accusing her of being a terrorist in apparent retaliation for having made a sexual harassment complaint against him.
“Ahmad was racially profiled and discriminated against because of her race, color and ethnic identity as an African American Muslim and labeled a terrorist based on false accusations provided by the harasser and adopted without adequate investigation by the university,” the lawsuit states.
Ahmad asked that the university provide her with an off-site proctor for her exams, but she said the university told her in April 2009 that her sexual harassment complaint had been closed and that she was being referred to a disciplinary committee. In June, she said the university dismissed her.
The FBI found no wrongdoing by Ahmad, her attorney said. A message left with an FBI spokesman Wednesday wasn’t immediately returned.
January 12th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
@Mohammed Al-Arabi
“The ‘Quran-only’ Movement is not representative of the Islamic ethos.”
You, Robert Spencer, Abul Kasem, and Ali Sina are in agreement on that point. You can’t find a single enemy of Islam who says the “Quran only” movement is representative of the Islamic ethos. But you can find a lot of them who say that the “hadith too” movement is representative of Islam. I’d be worried if I ever found myself in agreement with those dudes.
“Muslims were never sola-scriptura – the traditions and sunnah cannot be sidelined.”
You remind me of that dude “Mooslims” who said you’ll never see a black physicist. Not only were there “Quran only” Muslims from the prophet’s time to today, “Quran only” Muslims predate “hadith too” Muslims and “sola-scriptura” Christians. You can find a detailed treatment of this subject in prof. Aisha Musa’s book “Hadith as Scripture”:
http://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Scripture-Discussions-Authority-Traditions/dp/0230605354/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326388986&sr=1-1
Here is a review of the book by Arnold Mol:
http://islamicreform.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:hadith-as-scripture-by-prof-aisha-y-musa&catid=37:quran&Itemid=65
“Besides, a ‘renewal’ of religion – ludicrous as that notion is as the pinnacle was with the Prophet peace be upon him – in this time and age, is beyond our means and capacities.”
Unfortunately, for many traditionalists, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you look at their history, each generation has indeed regressed from the “pinnacle” of traditionalism in the 10th and 11th centuries.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
UPDATE: We are trying to work with Spencer on a neutral venue, as well as a debate topic. He of course is being cantankerous, and putting up hurdles. We will update you when we finalize anything.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
The debate topic should be the factual accuracy of Spencer’s book (namely what is says about jihad, “dhimmitude,” and taqiyya). Spencer may claim he’s never wrong but he knows well that his “work” is absolutely rife with errors, which is why he’ll try to move the topic to something else.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Also, Sid makes a good point that blows a whole in Spencer’s argument regarding jihad. Spencer claims that no “sect or school” challenged the idea of “offensive jihad”, yet Shias (who make up ~10% of Muslims) believe that this type of jihad is only legitimate under the their occulted imam. In other words, Spencer completely ignores the Shia view of jihad, yet this doesn’t stop him from mentioning nikah mutah (which is limited to Shias) in order to bash Muslims. This type of contradictory “methodology” (I use that word very liberally here) is common throughout Spencer’s bigoted writings.
January 12th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
@NassirH,
Also Spencer is wrong about offensive jihad not being challenged by any sect or school in Islam, because the Ahmadis believe that offensive jihad is unnecessary in modern times in accordance to the teachings of their Messiah aka Ghulam Ahmad.
Well Spencer may retort and say that the Ahmadis are not Muslim but anyone who says the Shahada is a Muslim according to Sunan Abu Daud and Ahmadis take the Shahada to the best of my knowledge.
January 12th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
The shia ‘nikah mutah’ which Spencer attacks has it’s counterpart in the Torah too, Orthodox Jews practice a form of temporary marriage similar to the Shia Muslims. There is nothing extroadinary in it, it was outlawed by Umar Ibn Al Khattab, but the Shia continued practicing it.
The Comeback Of Concubines
http://articles.nydailynews.com/1996-12-29/news/18018188_1_orthodox-judaism-jewish-history-orthodox-community
shadowy Brooklyn organization is recruiting married Orthodox Jewish men to enter extramarital relations by promoting the ancient biblical concept of concubines.
The organization, which calls itself Shalom Bayis (Household Peace in Hebrew), operates a telephone hotline through which men can meet women willing to serve as concubines kept mistresses.
Instead of going on the defensive, Spencer should be reminded that the faith of Isa (AS), was Judaism. Polygamy and concubinage was practiced by the Prophets, including Prophet Mohammad (AS).
Danios,
Good luck with your debate. Regardless of the outcome, you can be sure that Spencer will try to spin it as a ‘victory’ for himself. That perhaps is the biggest indicator of his quackery, and dubious ‘scholarship’, his ignorant followers who probably do not even know what a ‘scholar’ is leave alone what credentials he/she must posess to have any credibility.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
I wonder how the Koran only Khawarij sect of Islam interpreted Jihad…
January 12th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Spencer may claim he’s never wrong but he knows well that his “work” is absolutely rife with errors, which is why he’ll try to move the topic to something else.
Such as claiming a Papal pronouncement is infallible ???
January 12th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
@WhatAboutJihad?
“I wonder how the Koran only Khawarij sect of Islam interpreted Jihad…”
LOL Is this a new argument Islamophobes plan to use on “Quran only” Muslims? Try to pin the khariji interpretation of jihad on them? Unfortunately for WhatAboutJihad, the khawarij weren’t “Quran only” Muslims. They had their own hadith collection called al-jami’ al-sahih, collected by Yusuf ibn Ibrahim al-Warjlani.
But let’s just pretend, for the sake of argument, that the khawarij were “Quran only” Muslims. Did you really think that no one would notice that Islamophobes went from claiming that “Quran only” Muslims were a modern phenomenon, to claiming that they are synonymous with the 8th century sect known as khawarij?
I guess if you can go from claiming to know minute details of Muhammad’s life, to claiming he doesn’t exist, anything is possible!
January 14th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Michael Bonner:
Broadly speaking, their [Kharajite/Khawarij] characteristics included (and still include) a fundamentalist approach in deriving principles and norms solely from the text of the Quran;….
Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice, p 125
Deriving principles and norms solely from the text of the Quran
When it came to Jihad (holy war), the Kharajites were sola scriptura.
January 14th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
@WhatAboutJihad?
What took you so long?
“Deriving principles and norms solely from the text of the Quran”
“When it came to Jihad (holy war), the Kharajites were sola scriptura.”
As I’ve pointed out in a previous post, the khawarij weren’t sola scriptura when it came to jihad. First, hadith played the same role in the formulation of khariji law that it played in sunni law. That’s why, besides their concept of war, excommunication, and who can lead the community, khariji law is similar to sunni law. Second, the khariji interpretation of jihad cannot be teased from the Quran. Prof. Aisha Musa, who I mentioned in a post above, wrote an article about the concept of jihad in the Quran:
http://www.examiner.com/religion-politics-in-miami/jihad-islam
Back to the drawing board for WhatAboutJihad?. . .
January 15th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Thanks Michael for the article.
It is an excellent example to be wary of what you read on the internet.
The author claims “[t]here is no concept of holy war (al-harb al-muqaddas) in the Quran” and “[t]he verb jahada (to struggle, strive) in various forms appears more than 30 times. None of these refers directly to fighting, let alone specifically to military action” and “where the Quran specifically commands striving, there is no reference to warfare”, but actually the Koran does refer to “to strive” and its various verb tenses and uses as a noun to refer to fighting and military action.
Mujihadeen is the noun form of Jihad and refers to Muslim warriors and is used in a military rather than spiritual sense in the Koran.
Verse 9:73 tells Muslims to “struggle” against unbelievers and hypocrites in a martial context:
Koran 9:73 – O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them; their refuge is Gehenna — an evil homecoming!
The rest of the article is selective citation of certain verses and ignorance of the ones that command fighting unbelievers, such as v9:29 which is the cornerstone of Jihad doctrine in Islam.
I see besides repeating your contention you have not actually shown that Kharajites derived their doctrine of Jihad from sources outside the Koran. I suppose repeating yourself enough times becomes fact for you.
I’m disappointed but not surprised.
January 15th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
@WhatAboutJihad?
“Thanks Michael for the article.”
You’re welcome.
“It is an excellent example to be wary of what you read on the internet.”
I’m also wary of what I read on the internet. That’s why I take what you, Ali Sina, Abul Kasem, and Robert Spencer say with a grain of salt (a huge grain of salt). But Aisha Musa isn’t an internet “expert” like the aforementioned, but a Harvard educated, peer reviewed professor.
“The author claims ‘[t]here is no concept of holy war (al-harb al-muqaddas) in the Quran’ and ‘[t]he verb jahada (to struggle, strive) in various forms appears more than 30 times. None of these refers directly to fighting, let alone specifically to military action’ and ‘where the Quran specifically commands striving, there is no reference to warfare’, but actually the Koran does refer to “to strive” and its various verb tenses and uses as a noun to refer to fighting and military action.”
Uh, no, it doesn’t.
“Mujihadeen is the noun form of Jihad and refers to Muslim warriors and is used in a military rather than spiritual sense in the Koran.”
The word mujahideen doesn’t occur in the Quran. It was coined later, and reflects a later non-Quranic usage.
“Verse 9:73 tells Muslims to “struggle” against unbelievers and hypocrites in a martial context:
“Koran 9:73 – O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them; their refuge is Gehenna — an evil homecoming!”
Yes, I know. What I’m doing right now is jihad, not qital. You might want to learn the difference.
“The rest of the article is selective citation of certain verses and ignorance of the ones that command fighting unbelievers, such as v9:29 which is the cornerstone of Jihad doctrine in Islam.”
Selective citation of certain verses? This coming from someone who wants to base his entire “Jihad doctrine in Islam” on a single verse (9:29), to the exclusion of all others. There is no single verse which is the cornerstone of *any* doctrine in Islam. On any given subject, ALL verses that deal with it must be taken into consideration. This (tafsir al-quran bil-quran) is one of the most elementary principles of Quranic exegesis.
By the way, isn’t it funny that the “cornerstone” verse of the “Jihad doctrine in Islam” doesn’t even mention jihad?
“I see besides repeating your contention you have not actually shown that Kharajites derived their doctrine of Jihad from sources outside the Koran. I suppose repeating yourself enough times becomes fact for you.”
“I’m disappointed but not surprised.”
I see besides repeating your contention you have not actually shown that the Kharijites derived their doctrine of Jihad from the Quran.
I’m disappointed but not surprised.
January 15th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Yeah, right, Michael. The Koran never uses Jihad in a martial (militant) context.
Perhaps you and your professor can explain this verse for me?
Koran 9:41 – Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.
I have to say, your scholar has let you down. Did you seriously not know that Jihad is used in a militant context in the Koran?
Seriously?
Next time, stick with real scholars on Islam. If I had recommended Reuven Firestone, David Cook or Michael Bonner prior to this discussion you may not have embarrassed yourself here today.
As for v9:73, it’s important to read the context of that verse.
Similarly as with verse v9:81, which is talking about striving on the battlefield – v9:83 makes this clear beyond any doubt.
January 15th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
The word mujahideen doesn’t occur in the Quran. It was coined later, and reflects a later non-Quranic usage.
Actually, Mikey, the Koran does use the term “al-mujahidin” – (‘those who are strivers’) in verse 4:94-95. And the context, unfortunately for you, Mikey, refers to fighting.
I encourage you to read Reuven Firestone’s “An introduction to Islam for Jews”, p177-178 which you can find on Google books.
January 15th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
@WhatAboutJihad?
“Yeah, right, Michael. The Koran never uses Jihad in a martial (militant) context.”
“Perhaps you and your professor can explain this verse for me?”
“Koran 9:41 – Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.”
Is your reading comprehension really this bad, or are you just toying with me? Neither I nor Musa said that the Quran never used the word jihad in a military sense. That is a straw man of your own creation. Here is what Musa wrote:
“Taken together, these verses show us that believers must be willing to exert great efforts in the cause of God, using our wealth and ourselves. These efforts (jihad) may, or may not include fighting.”
How you gleaned from the above that the Quran never uses the word jihad in a military context, I don’t know.
“I have to say, your scholar has let you down.”
I have to say, your reading comprehension has let you down.
“Did you seriously not know that Jihad is used in a militant context in the Koran?”
Yes, I knew jihad is used in a military context in the Quran (see above). I read the article. And, more importantly, I read the Quran. . . the whole Quran (in Arabic). That’s how I knew that jihad didn’t mean “holy war” (a Judeo-Christian term and concept) waged indiscriminately against “infidels”.
“Seriously?”
Yes, seriously.
“Next time, stick with real scholars on Islam. If I had recommended Reuven Firestone, David Cook or Michael Bonner prior to this discussion you may not have embarrassed yourself here today.”
Next time, try to comprehend what you read. If you do, embarrassing situations like this can be avoided.
“As for v9:73, it’s important to read the context of that verse.”
I did read the verse in context. I also squinted my eyes and looked at it sideways. And I still couldn’t tease the “Jihad doctrine in Islam”, as you understand, it from the verse.
“Similarly as with verse v9:81, which is talking about striving on the battlefield – v9:83 makes this clear beyond any doubt.”
The funny thing about this is that, as your hero Robert Spencer likes to say, those verses (9:73, 9;81, and 9:83) are descriptive not prescriptive. They are describing past conflicts, not prescribing future conflicts. Verses 9:73 and 9:81 even specifically mention the prophet/messenger. So, how did you tease your amusing “Jihad doctrine in Islam” from them?
January 15th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
@WhatAboutJihad?
“Actually, Mikey, the Koran does use the term “al-mujahidin” – (‘those who are strivers’) in verse 4:94-95.”
You’re right, it does occur in verse 4:95. I stand corrected.
“And the context, unfortunately for you, Mikey, refers to fighting.”
But, unfortunately for you, the context doesn’t refer to the kind indiscriminate, perpetual fighting that is central to your “Jihad doctrine in Islam”. Verse 4:94 pretty much blows that view out of the water.
January 15th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
I forgot to mention that WhatAboutJihad? initially used a inaccurate definition of mujahideen (Muslim warriors), but wisely used a more accurate definition (those who are strivers) in the next post.
January 15th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
But Mikey, Musa actually says:
“[t]he verb jahada (to struggle, strive) in various forms appears more than 30 times. None of these refers directly to fighting, let alone specifically to military action”
and
“where the Quran specifically commands striving, there is no reference to warfare”
So Musa is wrong. The Koran does use Jihad in a militant context. What your quotation of Musa seems to say is that Jihad (to strive) can be interpreted to fight based on other passages on self defense she cites in her article.
But, unfortunately, she is very clear that the Koran itself does not use Jihad in a violent manner. However, you agree now that it does. This is quite disappointing. She was a Harvard professor and all.
That’s how I knew that jihad didn’t mean “holy war” (a Judeo-Christian term and concept) waged indiscriminately against “infidels”.
Actually, Mikey, the term “holy war” was coined in the late 19th century just to be precise.
You can call Jihad warfare by any name you want, but fighting for Allah to establish Islamic law – defensively (v2:193) or offensively (9:29) makes no bit of difference what Jihad warfare actually is – holy war.
Muslims do not view war for Allah as inherently evil as St. Augustine viewed war. By my stance, when fighting itself is viewed as righteous (not the reasons you’re waging war) that fighting becomes holy to its warriors.
January 16th, 2012 at 10:50 am
@JettaBoob
“So Musa is wrong. The Koran does use Jihad in a militant context. What your quotation of Musa seems to say is that Jihad (to strive) can be interpreted to fight based on other passages on self defense she cites in her article.”
Thanks, Captain Obvious. But isn’t that what I said in the previous post?
“But, unfortunately, she is very clear that the Koran itself does not use Jihad in a violent manner.”
And she’s right. Jihad can include self-defense in a military context. You said that’s what my quotation of Musa “seems to say”. Remember?
“However, you agree now that it does.”
No, I don’t agree.
“This is quite disappointing.”
You’re quite disappointing
“She was a Harvard professor and all.”
She was educated at Harvard. She doesn’t teach at Harvard.
“Actually, Mikey, the term ‘holy war’ was coined in the late 19th century just to be precise.”
Actually, JettaBoob, the term holy war was coined in the 20th century by the German orientalist Friedrich Schwally. Ironically, he used the term holy war (heilige Krieg) to refer to the Old Testament concept of war (even though he was familiar with the Quran and even worked on the 2nd edition of Theodore Nöldeke’s book “History of the Koran”). Chagrined Jewish and Christian Islamophobes have tried to associate the term with Islam and the Quran ever since.
“You can call Jihad warfare by any name you want, but fighting for Allah to establish Islamic law – defensively (v2:193) or offensively (9:29) makes no bit of difference what Jihad warfare actually is – holy war.”
Verse 9:29 doesn’t refer to offensive war. It refers to defensive war. Specifically, the battle of Hunayn (see 9:25) when the Muslims were attacked.
“Muslims do not view war for Allah as inherently evil as St. Augustine viewed war. By my stance, when fighting itself is viewed as righteous (not the reasons you’re waging war) that fighting becomes holy to its warriors.”
Danios wrote an article about St. Augustine’s supposed opposition to war, but I can’t remember which one. Anyway, even if St. Augustine was opposed to war, Pope Urban II and successive Popes weren’t.
“By my stance, when fighting itself is viewed as righteous (not the reasons you’re waging war) that fighting becomes holy to its warriors.”
That’s a pretty good summary of Friedrich Schwally’s view of the OT.
January 16th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Thanks, Captain Obvious. But isn’t that what I said in the previous post?
Nope, and Musa is quite clear in her belief that the term “Jihad” and its various uses and tenses are not used in a martial context:
“[t]he verb jahada (to struggle, strive) in various forms appears more than 30 times. None of these refers directly to fighting, let alone specifically to military action”
“where the Quran specifically commands striving, there is no reference to warfare”
So is Musa right in the above quotes? Does the Koran not have a reference to warfare when it commands striving? Does Jihad and its various forms never refer to fighting or military action?
Those are the words of your “scholar”. You should defend them and if you cannot be upfront enough to acknowledge that what she said is wrong.
Verse 9:29 doesn’t refer to offensive war. It refers to defensive war. Specifically, the battle of Hunayn (see 9:25) when the Muslims were attacked.
Sorry, but the battle of Hunayn was an engagement against a Pagan enemy. You can look up the history behind the battle yourself. There were no “People of the Book” of appreciable importance involved.
January 16th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
@WhatAboutJihad?
“Nope, and Musa is quite clear in her belief that the term “Jihad” and its various uses and tenses are not used in a martial context”
One more time, here’s what Musa wrote:
“Taken together, these verses show us that believers must be willing to exert great efforts in the cause of God, using our wealth and ourselves. These efforts (jihad) may, or may not include fighting.”
WhatAbourJihad? wrote:
“Those are the words of your “scholar”. You should defend them and if you cannot be upfront enough to acknowledge that what she said is wrong.”
So far, you haven’t defended anything you’ve said. First, you said the Khawarij were “Quran only” Muslims. When I pointed out that the Khawarij had their own collection of hadith, you didn’t defend that assertion. Then you said, okay, maybe the Khawarij weren’t “Quran only” Muslims, but their interpretation of jihad is based only on the Quran. When I pointed out that their interpretation of jihad couldn’t be teased from the Quran, you couldn’t defend that assertion. Then you said that the term “holy war” was coined in the 19th century. When I pointed out that the term was coined in the 20th century, in reference to the Bible’s concept of war, you wouldn’t defend that assertion (and quickly changed the subject ). But you demand that I defend someone else’s words from your caricature?
“Sorry, but the battle of Hunayn was an engagement against a Pagan enemy.”
No shit, Sherlock!
You can look up the history behind the battle yourself. There were no “People of the Book” of appreciable importance involved.
Who said anything about People of the Book? Verses 9:25-29 are referring to the battle of Hunayn. Again, with the reading comprehension. . .
I don’t know where you’re at, but here in America it’s MLK day. And if you think I’m going to spend it arguing in circles with you and your multiple personalities. . . somebody done told you wrong!
January 16th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
@Michael Elwood
Asalaamu Alaikum Michael, I see you’ve been going back and forth for the last 2-3 days with the same troll who was determined from the get-go to go off topic on yet surprise-surprise another million times “brought up”, million times refuted and explained subject to waste our times as usual, I swear its like these Islamophobes never learn anything, this individual particularly seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Jihad, note he always attaches it after his many different pseudonyms WhatAboutJihad, JihadBob ect, he keep on bringing everytime this same subject even though he knows his arguments has been million time refuted, but does he ever learn or even listen to anything said of course not, so I’ll advise you not to waste your time, those are the precise people Allah is talking about when He says- there are those who’s hearts and intellects are veiled.
But anyway, I know it’s Martin Luther King’s day today in America, so happy MLK’s day to you. But if I may, I will like to ask you, since A- I’m not from US, and B- I’m sure you know more about American Black history than me, is that how come there haven’t been any demand for Malcolm X “day”? Weren’t they both civil right activists of the same calibre during that time? I mean I never understood why one is nationality celebrated and praised, but the other is not. I hope it’s not his “Muslim-ness” that has blocked the way and prevented this.
January 16th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Géji asks, “how come there haven’t been any demand for Malcolm X ‘day’? Weren’t they both civil right activists of the same calibre during that time?”
My belief on this. 1. It is he “Muslim-ness” you discuss. The US was, and most likely still is, not quite ready for that, though I bet you could get a Muhammad Ali Day. 2. MLK has a consistent history of advocating non-violence while Malcolm X had a more convoluted road with some more inflammatory quotes from earlier in his life. See, for example, the quotes used by Spike Lee in his 1989 film “Do The Right Thing” (below), and you’ll understand why it would take more guts to propose a Malcolm X holiday to mainstream America, given that that is how Malcolm X was presented by someone sympathetic to him.
“Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys a community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I think there are plenty of good people in America, but there are also plenty of bad people in America and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn’t mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don’t even call it violence when it’s self-defense, I call it intelligence.”
- Malcolm X
January 16th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
@Géji
Salaam, bro. Yeah, that’s 2-3 days out of my life that I’ll never get back. Let me just correct something I said, then I’ll leave it alone. I said that the German orientalist, Friedrich Schwally, coined the term holy war (heiliger krieg). However, the term holy war (קַדְּשׁוּ מִלְחָמָה) was used in Joel 4:9. And Pope Urban II used the term holy war (bellum sacrum) to refer to the Crusades.
“But anyway, I know it’s Martin Luther King’s day today in America, so happy MLK’s day to you. But if I may, I will like to ask you, since A- I’m not from US, and B- I’m sure you know more about American Black history than me, is that how come there haven’t been any demand for Malcolm X “day”? Weren’t they both civil right activists of the same calibre during that time? I mean I never understood why one is nationality celebrated and praised, but the other is not. I hope it’s not his “Muslim-ness” that has blocked the way and prevented this.”
I don’t know. It may have something to do with the fact that MLK is perceived as less threatening than Malcolm X. That wasn’t the way MLK was perceived when he was alive, however. When he was alive, Conservatives perceived him the same way they perceive Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Rev. Al Sharpton. Even after his death, they still hated him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day#Reluctance_to_observe
As for Malcolm X, he didn’t seem to care what his enemies thought of him. And he’d probably take umbrage if people who clearly didn’t like him grudgingly honored him with a holiday.
January 16th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Michael Ellwood says, “However, the term holy war (קַדְּשׁוּ מִלְחָמָה) was used in Joel 4:9.” At best, that would translate as “consecrate war” because that’s a verb (plural command) plus a noun (“war”), though I imagine a war so consecrated may be considered a holy war. The verb is also often used somewhat idiomatically.
January 16th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
One more time, here’s what Musa wrote:
“Taken together, these verses show us that believers must be willing to exert great efforts in the cause of God, using our wealth and ourselves. These efforts (jihad) may, or may not include fighting.”
Mikey, you are starting to disappoint.
Musa’s clear, unambiguous comments on Jihad not directly relating to warfare have been posted several times and each time you choose to ignore what Musa wrote.
For the umpteenth time:
“[t]he verb jahada (to struggle, strive) in various forms appears more than 30 times. None of these refers directly to fighting, let alone specifically to military action”
“where the Quran specifically commands striving, there is no reference to warfare”
Pray, tell, Mikey, what does Musa mean when she says ‘jahada’ does not directly refer to fighting and military action or that where the Koran commands striving, there is no reference to warfare?
So far, you haven’t defended anything you’ve said.
You mean the quote from Bonner saying the Kharajites derived principles and norms solely from the Koran?
When I pointed out that their interpretation of jihad couldn’t be teased from the Quran, you couldn’t defend that assertion.
No, Mikey, I didn’t have much to say about your opinion. I was half expecting an actual rebuttal to a real scholar or an admission you were wrong.
Who said anything about People of the Book? Verses 9:25-29 are referring to the battle of Hunayn. Again, with the reading comprehension. . .
Sigh, Mikey. V9:29 says something about the People of the Book. You’re referring me to a previous verse that is not contextually linked with verse 9:29. The proof is that the Battle of Hunayn involved fighting Pagans (and it was in the past tense!) and verse 9:29 talks of fighting ‘People of the Book’ in the present.
Please, Mikey, you’re getting torn up. Take a break and read Robert Spencer’s commentary on the Koran so you can learn something and be better able to respond to my arguments.
January 16th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
@Just Stopping By
You know Hebrew better than anyone on LW, so I’ll defer to you.
January 16th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Jack Cope Says: … amongst other things there is the so called ‘Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly’ which was tested last year (small sub atomic particles were found to travel a distance faster than light was) …
What traveled faster than light was information, not a particle. A change in one particle was echoed in another “bonded” particle simultaneously ~ or so close to simultaneously that it could not be measured. There is information in the Qur’an implicitly showing that information can travel at fifty times the speed of light. The European accelerator experiment proved that to be true.
January 16th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
@Géji
I know that I said that I wouldn’t continue with WAJ? and his multiple personalities. But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t tempted. You know how argumentative I am.
Particularly, I want to respond to his assertion about verse 9:29 not being connected to 9:25, and the “People of the Book” that WAJ? believes fought in the battle of Hunayn (but not of “appreciable importance”). But I know that if I give into the temptation, I’ll be sucked into the vortex of stupidity forever.
January 17th, 2012 at 12:48 am
Perhaps reform [of Islam] is not the correct word for it but I am struggling to come up with a better more realistic one. Something that means brought back to its pure and original form. Any word like that?
Yes. The Arabic active imperfect verb that means “to return to a natural or original state” is salama. It’s the root word for “Islam.”
The passive perfect verb, salima, means “to be safe and sound, unharmed, unimpaired, intact, safe, secure; to be unobjectionable, blameless, faultless; to be certain, established, clearly proven (fact); to be free.
saleem means, among other things already meant by the passive perfect verb, “undamaged, sound, intact, complete, perfect, whole, integral.”
al-Islam is explicitly the name of our religion ~ it can be accurately translated as “The Restoration” ~ the restoration of our original human nature and state, before “The Fall” of Adam from the human nature in which he was created. In the Qur’an, God says “This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My Favor on you and have permitted for you al-Islam.” (Q5:3) This is generally believed to be the last statement, completing the Qur’an.
The material manifestation of that perfection ~ the situation and condition of the muslim Ummah on that precise day ~ is thoroughly known. It included the faithful and the hypocritical, the rich and the poor, the wise and the foolish, the cooperative and the antagonistic, the agreeable and the contentious; twenty-three years of development, demonstration, and explanation; and a complete description of human nature and the behaviors of the inmates of The Garden and the inmates of The Fire, which were then, are now, and forever made known to us as good news for the faithful and a warning to those who do not keep faith. We have this “User’s Manual for the Naturally-Occurring Autonomic Human Being,” and the Manufacturer’s “Complete Guide for the Operation of the Phenomenological Universe,” complete, intact, unchanged, unrevised, and utterly inexorable, with us, today. What we do not have is that material manifestation of that perfection, but only what is probably the largest library devoted to a single topic in human history.
A few days later the Messenger died, and that complete perfection disappeared from full manifestation before his body had grown cold. After that, everything went downhill, and that’s what people are discussing today as “Islam.” The amazing thing is that some people think that something that no longer exists can be “reformed,” and something that is perfect and intact needs to be “reformed.”
But that’s the word you’re looking for: Islam is a means of “restoring your natural, pure, original form and state” ~ which, it will be found, no one can do without God’s continuous Guidance and Help. As for the Qur’an, it is not in need of “reform” ~ we are in need of understanding, which comes only from God, and can be found within the Qur’an as we try to live By The Book.
January 18th, 2012 at 1:04 am
Our resident English teacher has pointed out to me that what I called The Arabic active imperfect verb salama is actually the active perfect, and what I called The passive perfect verb salima is actually the passive imperfect. Salama means “he restored,” and salima means “he is restored” to an original state and condition. “Salama Allah Adam” would say “God restored Adam” ~ a done deed ~ while “Salima Adam” would say “Adam is restored” ~ an on-going condition subject to change.
Arabic has two tenses ~ “It is done,” referring to an action that has been indelibly written into the overall fabric of time and will not change, and “It is happening,” referring to an action taking place at a particular time, which may or may not become recognizable as a matter of “It is done” at some future moment, or may continue happening forever.
When the Messenger said “I see darkness falling among your houses like rain,” he was seeing something happening. When he said “Surely he has entered The Garden,” he was not talking about something that was happening, but about what happened.
Arabic says “I’m going to the store” only when the speaker is actually on his way to the store, which is true whether or not he gets where he is going. Before he starts on his way, he would say “I’m going to the store if God wills,” which is true even if he never gets started. English speaks of possibilities as certainties, leading to false prophecies ~ “I’m going to the store” is not true until he has actually started going. Arabic is more precise and clear.
January 18th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
@Michael Elwood
Thanks for the reply Michael, I’ve read the article you’ve linked, and you’re right, MLK is not celebrated with good heart in many corners of America, at least for now, as there are I’m sure many who still deep down opposes what he stood for, and he was Christian, so I can imagine what opposition a Muslim Malcolm X would face. But I still think after this whole Islamophobiapalooza madness cools down, the African American Muslims who not only are growing in number but also in strength in the US, and as Dr Sherman Jackson rightly put it, when he said that they are the ones who constitute in the context of “American” Muslims as the “indigenous” element of the whole fabric, should nonetheless in my estimation lobby for a day to honor him, even though as you suggested yourself, I don’t think Malcolm would care the least for it. But what matter anyway is that his mission and his courage will never be forgotten, and do lives and celebrated throughout the hearts and minds of the millions of people worldwide who love and care for him, so a “day” wouldn’t be enough anyway. This man-(Allah-Yarhamu)-alone introduced so many people worldwide to Islam, whether Black, White, Latino, and that t’ill this day even way after he’s gone, so that in itself it’s a pride and an accomplishment that needs it’s own recognition and celebration throughout the Muslim world. But anyway, good decision “resisting” the temptation of what could’ve only been a waste of your time with trolly, loony-fruity…. Salaamu alaikum.
@Just Stopping BY
Salaam, thanks bro, you’re right that that may be the main reason behind the reluctance, his “Muslim-ness”. You also said the US was and still is not ready for this, and you may be right, but whether they’re “ready” or not, it doesn’t change the fact that Malcolm X was as American as apple pie as he was Muslim. But all this reminds me of a statement made by Dr Sherman Jackson which in my opinion drive this point home. He said that the American fabric is always in constant negotiation, and that everything in that fabric had to be negotiated in order to “pass” into mainstream as “accepted”, and that this has been the case since the very beginning of America. For example, Catholicism, the different factions of Protestantism, Judaism, Irishness, Italianness, Greekness, and so on and so forth , all had to negotiate their little corner into the bigger fabric of the American society. Thus, he was saying that that’s precisely what’s taking place for Islam right now, it had to happen at some point anyway, since as he said everything and everybody had to go through that process of negotiation, and in that sense Islam is no different. And although Islam itself in some ways has been in the scene of what may be the beginning, if not in some other ways then at least through slavery, since it is said that at least 25-35% of African slaves were Muslims, it was very much suppressed though nonetheless always maintaining some presence, but it didn’t succeed at the time pushing itself through the mainstream as its doing right now, nor didn’t have what we can call a solid representation which could have brought its subject to the negotiation table, as it have now. Thus, what’s taking place right now for American Islam, its very much in that spirit of the American process of negotiation in order to become mainstreamly “passable” thus acceptable into the bigger fabric of America. But as you yourself may know it, nothing comes cheap or easily in capitalist USA, I hope we can agree on that…………. Salaam bro or sis.
January 18th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
@Géji
“Thanks for the reply Michael, I’ve read the article you’ve linked, and you’re right, MLK is not celebrated with good heart in many corners of America, at least for now, as there are I’m sure many who still deep down opposes what he stood for, and he was Christian, so I can imagine what opposition a Muslim Malcolm X would face.”
Yeah, a lot of them just give lip service to the principles he advocated. For example, in the debate Believing Atheist linked to above between Edip Yuksel and Bill Warner, Warner criticized the Quran for not endorsing the Golden Rule. Warner probably thought Yuksel would insist that it did, but he thew him a curve ball by agreeing with him. Yuksel (who teaches ethics) pointed out that many Christians (and non-Christians) give lip service to the Golden Rule, but few actually apply it in real life.
In a debate that ironically happened on MLK day, Ron Paul said that our foreign policy should be based on the Golden Rule. And the South Carolina audience, which was doubtlessly full of Christians, booed him!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltRTLNZmmfs
“But I still think after this whole Islamophobiapalooza madness cools down, the African American Muslims who not only are growing in number but also in strength in the US, and as Dr Sherman Jackson rightly put it, when he said that they are the ones who constitute in the context of “American” Muslims as the “indigenous” element of the whole fabric, should nonetheless in my estimation lobby for a day to honor him, even though as you suggested yourself, I don’t think Malcolm would care the least for it.”
They can lobby for it, but I still don’t think it’ll happen. When American Muslims were fighting for everyone’s civil and human rights back then, someone had to be the “good cop”, and someone had to be the “bad cop”. Malcolm X was the “bad cop”. There are other American Muslims who are more liked than Malcolm X. Like Muhammad Ali, who recently celebrated his birthday:
http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/lapchick-120117/a-call-action-pro-athletes-use-muhammad-ali-role-model
Or Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who was just appointed as cultural ambassador:
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/7475252/kareem-abdul-jabbar-appointed-global-cultural-ambassador
“But what matter anyway is that his mission and his courage will never be forgotten, and do lives and celebrated throughout the hearts and minds of the millions of people worldwide who love and care for him, so a “day” wouldn’t be enough anyway. This man-(Allah-Yarhamu)-alone introduced so many people worldwide to Islam, whether Black, White, Latino, and that t’ill this day even way after he’s gone, so that in itself it’s a pride and an accomplishment that needs it’s own recognition and celebration throughout the Muslim world.”
Even without an official holiday, I think Muslims in America and around the world could honor him by promoting his belief in human rights for all, and correcting the numerous misconceptions about what he believed.
“I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don’t believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn’t want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment.”
– Speech, Dec. 12 1964, New York City.
“There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That’s a good religion.”
– “Message to the Grass Roots,” speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
“But anyway, good decision “resisting” the temptation of what could’ve only been a waste of your time with trolly, loony-fruity…. Salaamu alaikum.”
So far, so good! But I don’t know how long I can hold out!
I still want to address his amusing interpretation of 9:25-29. Salaam.