Spencer and the Qur’an: Book Burning bad but Book Banning Good

Robert Spencer has a Geert Wilders problem. He is an unabashed supporter of Wilders, citing him as the champion of Western civilization, the only one willing to stand up for our freedoms in the face of the Muslim menace and an individual we should all be supporting.

[I] support Wilders. And so should anyone who holds dear the Western values that are threatened by Islamic supremacists — notably, as I said above, the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law.

But apparently not Freedom of Religion.

Recently Spencer has commented on the Burn a Koran day festivities saying,

I oppose the Qur’an-burning. I don’t like the burning of books…However, these people are free to do what they want to do.

Isn’t Spencer so merciful? Thank you for opposing the burning of books, what a courageous stand for a defender of the West!

But wait Spencer, you oppose burning books but your buddy Geert Wilders has called for the Quran to be banned in the Netherlands.

The Koran must be banned

Pretty unequivocal statement right there. No ifs, ands or buts just plain banning. So when are you going to take a courageous stand and defend Freedom of Speech and Religion by calling your buddy Wilders out for his Nazi like fascistic statement to ban the Quran?

105 thoughts on “Spencer and the Qur’an: Book Burning bad but Book Banning Good

  1. False argument.

    Spencer has, many times, stated that he does not support the banning of the Qur’an. One can support Wilders and not support 100% of his ideas. Unless you can find a statement by Spencer that states that he supports the banning of the Qur’an? Good luck.

    • You can also support the KKK without supporting 100% of there ideas, can’t you?

      Spencer has openly said he wants to make it so hard to practice Islam in America that Muslims will leave. How is that different from banning the Quran?

      By the way, Spencer spends all his days inciting hatred against Muslims, then he shies away from the fruit of his deeds. Pathetic hypocrisy.

      • No, he really doesn’t incite “hatred against Muslims.” He is simply a messenger. The ones who are inciting hatred are Muslims committing violent jihad across the world.

        It’s funny how you guys are so focused on what “Islamophobes” like Spencer are saying, and are trying to tu quoque his arguments to death, yet you are not trying to point out how the terrorists are wrong when they say the same things that Spencer is saying.

        • Muslims have consistently denounced terrorism.

          http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

          What we are saying is that Robert Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot who treats Muslims the way anti-Semites treat Jews. His incitement has led to real hate crimes all over the country. In this way, Spencer is no different than Hamas; he just lives in comfy America, not occupied Palestine.

          • Right, that explains why there are large scale protests that occur every time a terror attack happens, and why Pakistan shuts down internet access for over a week.

            Oh wait, that was the “Draw Muhammad Day” event on Facebook. The only thing Muslims do when a terror attack happens is whine about Islamophobia and initiate fake hate crimes against themselves so that they can claim to be victims of “anti-Muslim backlash.”

    • The support of Geert Wilders is to support not only banning the Quran, but other Wildersism, like ethnic registration, headscarf taxes, closing of mosques, Islamic schools, and changing the Dutch constitution to effectively remove protections for religious freedom, equality and the rule of law.
      Support for Wilders means support for the destruction of Dutch society and freedom for all dutch people. This action of supporting Geert Widlers should be viewed as a hostile action against the Dutch people and nation by foreign groups and individuals.

  2. Burning the Koran is an idiotic and inane gesture. It achieves nothing. Imagine the uproar if radical Muslims burned the Bible. In Australia, there was an article in the paper today about a man who placed a large crucifix on his front lawn upsetting neighbours as well as the people who love in shared apartment at the back of this man’s property. I don’t blame them. People are free to practise their religion but religion should remain a private matter and not shoved down other people’s throats in a secular nation.

  3. Ahni,

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/02/is-geert-wilders-inconsistent-in-calling-for-banning-the-quran-and-defending-free-speech.html

    Here Spencer writes a long article defending Wilders right to have the Quran banned but then finishes it off with “I myself don’t support “hate speech” laws or the banning of any book”.

    Just like this article says — Spencer is “okay” if the Quran was banned because it’s just the law being applied consistently. The only reason he says that line is because no one can criticize him about being inconsistent when he whined that his book was banned in Pakistan.

  4. If Spencer is against banning the Koran why won’t he condemn Wilders for his anti-freedom views?

    And I love how jihadwatchers come here and innocently tell us that “you can support someone and not agree with 100% of his ideas” when robert spencer smears everyone as a secret jihadist if their golf partner’s second cousin did not explicitely condemn Hamas or some other nonsense.

    Here are some examples:
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/surprise-surprise-moderate-muslim-tv-channel-in-uk-linked-to-jihadist-cleric-al-awlaki.html.

    here’s Robert Spencer smearing Tariq Ramadan because of who his grandfather was:

    “A “religious scholar”? Is that really all that Tariq Ramadan is? Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood — an international Islamic supremacist organization that is dedicated, in its own words (according to an internal Brotherhood document captured in a raid of the Holy Land Foundation), to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.” While he has alluded vaguely to disagreements with his grandfather, he has also lionized him, and has never repudiated the Brotherhood’s program. ”

    Lets see Robert Spencer repudiate Wilders’s programme, lets see him stop lionizing Wilders.

    • “And I love how jihadwatchers come here and innocently tell us that “you can support someone and not agree with 100% of his ideas” when robert spencer smears everyone as a secret jihadist if their golf partner’s second cousin did not explicitely condemn Hamas or some other nonsense.”

      True That!

      By the way, Muslims have a problem in condemning Hamas because, as a prominent Jewish MP Sir Gerald Kaufman says, it is “the only game in town”. Spencer latches onto Muslim reluctance to condemn Hamas and uses it to character assassinate them.

      Why do Islamophobes whine about the lack of democracy in Islamic Countries when Hamas was actually elected by the Palestinians fair and square.

      The CIA is currently carrying out drone attacks on anyone wearing a turban and beard in Pakistan. To me, it’s a terrorist organisation. So why doesn’t Spencer denounce those who side with the CIA? Should all Americans be considered untrustworthy because an arm of its government is terrorist organisation.

      • Arabs are not quick to condemn a group that, while violent and racist, is reacting to an unjust, illegal, and brutal occupation. According to this view, to condemn Hamas is tantamount to supporting Israeli war crimes. (I don’t agree with that view, but that’s what I think it is).

      • The CIA is currently carrying out drone attacks on anyone wearing a turban and beard in Pakistan. To me, it’s a terrorist organisation. So why doesn’t Spencer denounce those who side with the CIA?

        So, you are defending Hamas by lying about the CIA, got it.

  5. I didn’t think the loons here have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing other over the issue of free speech.

    Ironically, Wilders takes the decidedly liberal view that the good of the whole community trumps individual liberties, ie., hate speech (the Koran) should be banned.

    It seems like many loons here are in total agreement with Wilders that speech they don’t like (Terry Jones, for example) should not be allowed.

    The decent thing to do, if you believed that Terry Jones should have been allowed to burn as many privately owned Korans as he pleases, would have been to express the view that while you do not agree with Terry Jones, you absolutely support his First Amendment rights.

    • Where in the Quran is hate speech? There is not a single verse in the Quran that you can quote in its proper context to prove that.

      “If they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.” (Surat al-Anfal 8:61)

      Rather, Wilders is just playing populist politics with people’s fears and ignorance of Islam.

      You make a lot of outrageous and ignorant claims about Islamic scripture, Jihad Bob, but you can never seem to back it up. Like Spencer, all you can do is deceitfully cut-and-paste without any context.

      • I predict JihadFool’s reply will probably insinuate that these peaceful verses were abrogated.

        Many Prominent Scholars of the Quran have opposed the traditional view regarding abrogation. Besides, many of the verses they say have been abrogated were not mentioned in the numerous tafsirs.

        When faced between choosing the opinion of Quranic scholars over Islamophobes, I would choose Quranic Scholars who are better judges of what has ans has not been abrogated.

        • The alleged abrogation of peaceful verses is an Orientalist fiction used to attack Islam.

          In Imam Suyuti’s book Itqan, he concludes about 20 verses can be considered abrogated; none of those are the peaceful verses.

          Tabari, father of Quran commentary, did not believe 2:190 was abrogated. Ibn Kathir did not believe 8:61 was abrogated.

  6. JihadBitch, if you’re interested in hate speech (obviously you are) read “On the Jews and their Lies” by a certain Christian theologian. I totally find the book disgusting and Antisemetic.

    You do realize you’re a champion of hate speech?
    You accusing others of it is ironic, funny, and just reveals your hypocrisy. But continue being self-righteous as you please, you’re just giving everyone laughs.

    • Denial of the Holocaust is illegal in 19 European States.

      Denial of God, Blasphemy towards the prophet and defamation of Islam is illegal in 0 European States.

      Looks like someone is being treated above the law — and it sure isn’t Muslims.

      • I think you’ll find that many Americans, including many prominent Jewish Americans are vehemently opposed to these laws.

        Now, how many Muslims or liberals on this site or from loonwatch will come out and defend Terry Jones for burning his private property if he so chooses ?

        BTW, interesting comparison to the destruction of private property to the denial of the deaths of 11 million people.

        Reminds me of Muslim cartoonists in Europe who responded to the Muhammad cartoons by insulting the victims of the Holocaust , which was their right, but interesting group they chose to target.

        • “Now, how many Muslims or liberals on this site or from loonwatch will come out and defend Terry Jones for burning his private property if he so chooses ?”

          Are you serious ? Are you waiting for a Muslim defending the burning of Qur’ans ? I would be surprised if believing Christians or Jews would come up in defense of a bonfire of their religious symbols. You have some weird standards.

  7. “Where in the Quran is hate speech? There is not a single verse in the Quran that you can quote in its proper context to prove that. ”

    You mean ‘context’ according to Justin.

    I judge the ‘eternal’ Koran as I would any modern document.

    If the President of the United States said Muslims were treacherous, his speech would be attacked for its ‘Islamophobia’.

    So, why not hold the Koran to these same standards. When the Koran says non-Muslims are of the devil, why not call a spade a spade and admit that these passages constitute religiously sanctioned hate ?

    But hey, two could play your game. For every peaceful or tolerant passage you think you can cite, I could easily counter that with five passages of intolerance from the Koran.

    And who’s to say that my interpretation isn’t any more valid ? Logically, it would be.

      • The believers fight in the way of God, and the unbelievers fight in the idols’ way. Fight you therefore against the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble. Koran 4:76

        • You bungler, the verse you cite does not speak about non-Muslims in general, but about non-Muslims who fight Muslims and oppress them (take a look at the previous verse).

          I am flabbergasted by hate mongerers who do not even speak Arabic trying to teach Muslims what the Qur’an really says.

        • The specifics of how to fight, where to fight, and when to fight aren’t mentioned in that verse. Also, which unbelievers are “of the devil” that Muslims are supposed to fight, are also not mentioned in that verse.

          However, all of these qualifications exist elsewhere in the Qur’an, including within the verses surrounding this one.

          You are, as usual, sensationalizing.

        • For a start the term taghut (طاغوت) does not simply mean”idols”, but also implies injustice and oppression (طاغ), but also the tempting seductiveness of such an approach/worldview against those who strive for justice.

          And as before, the nefarious term “awliya” (أولياء الشيطان) rears its head in this verse, referring to the non-believers. Once again, it means supporters or patrons, this time of Satan – it nowhere states in the verse that they are literally “from” Satan.

        • “Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them.” (4:90)

          Like I said, you would quote the Quran out of context. No orthodox Muslim believes as you or Spencer say.

    • By the way, I knew you would quote a verse out of context and I have responded by quoting another verse in the same Surah that states Muslims are forbidden from attacking peaceful non-Muslims. By quoting out of context, I mean that you, like Spencer, will quote a verse of the Quran but NOT quote the verses before or after it. That is very dishonest.

  8. Miracles do happen. I agree with JihadBob (right now he’s in his JihadBitch form)

    “I didn’t think the loons here have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing other over the issue of free speech.”

    Yep, Islamophobic loons don’t have a leg to stand on: they want to ban the Koran, deny Muslims the right to build mosques in California, Tennessee, and other places, want to expel or deport Muslims from the area they were born in…

    Loons like Wilders are basically hypocrites.

    BTW, JihadBoy, here’s your English lesson of the day.

    “I didn’t think the loons here have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing other over the issue of free speech.”

    It is supposed to be…

    I didn’t think the loons here have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing others over the issue of free speech.

    It’s OTHERS not OTHER.

    Now you try. If you need help, come see me after class.

    Methinks you should master your own language before trying to criticize a book written in Arabic.

      • Simple, Ahni. JihadBob/Spencer has no command of the Arabic language and is therefore technically handicapped with respect to understanding and interpreting the Quran.

        NassirH has made this clear in a rather creative way – something even you would have recognized, had you read his comment to the very last word.

        Nuances, Ahni. Apparently, not everybody gets them.

        • Any language can be translated, and Arabic is no different. The idea that the Qur’an can only be understood in Arabic is ludicrous, and is just one of the many games that Muslims play to deceive the infidels about Islam.

          In any case, Robert routinely uses citations and arguments by Islamic scholars who do speak and understand Arabic, and they arrive at the same conclusions. Death to apostates, jihad against the infidels, etc. There are plenty of Muslims in the Islamic world who are apparently misunderstanding Islam in the same way Robert is… do they also not have a firm grasp of Arabic?

          • Robert Spencer simply cherry picks Muslims who agree with him on certain issues while ignoring those that don’t.

            By doing this he manipulates his gullible audience into believing what he wants them to.

  9. “Ironically, Wilders takes the decidedly liberal view that the good of the whole community trumps individual liberties, ie., hate speech (the Koran) should be banned.”

    Quite the opposite, Wilders takes the ultraconservative view that our society should remove foreign influences and argues that certain groups (non-Muslims) have more rights than others (Muslims). He advocates against a multicultural society, immigration and, most importantly, against freedom of speech, religion and the right to assembly. Only non-Muslims should have that right, he even wants to change our constitution for that reason to turn Muslims into second class citizens with fewer rights. He does not want hate speech to be banned — he is protected himself by that same law — he only wants the Qu’ran (and Islam) to be banned. He has no complaints about ‘hate passages’ in the Bible or Torah, or any other book for that matter.

    There is nothing liberal about Wilders’ views. He uses almost exactly the same phrase as in Germany in the thirties, when they argued that Judaism was not a religion, but a dangerous ideology, a conspiracy aimed at world domination. Wilders only changed Judaism for Islam.

  10. The Islamophobes had their field day when some idiots tried to burn churches in certain Muslim countries, and yet when it comes to Qur’an burning, it is alright for them because it is their “free speech”. Such hypocrisy stink to the highest heavens.

  11. How about you actually try to refute JihadBob’s points rather than give him silly names like JihadBitch? Many Muslims rave about good character, yet at the end of the day they insult people on the internet instead of debating with them rationally and logically. Please, think before you talk. If you want to convince non-Muslims that Islam is not an evil religion, you should improve yourselves first. The Koran tells Muslims to use the best words when talking to ANYONE.

    Do you seriously blame non-Muslims for calling us insane when we overreact about people burning Korans?

    • I Agrizzle.

      Nassir H should tone down the anger. JihadBob loves it. He likes to see Muslims hurt and upset.

      I’ve refuted him numerous times, now I’m just bored because it flies over his head. He picks up on one part of the argument and soils himself over it.

      Also, I refer to him as Robert Spencer and he doesn’t respond to it. Suspicious? Yes.

      • Spencer should spend more time on the treadmill and the elliptical than writing and pontificating about how evil Muslims are. It would be far more beneficial for his health than spending his fat arse behind a computer blogging about the evils of Islam, but the minute he suffers a heart attack due to his portly figure anyone willing to bet his delusional supporters will somehow claim Muslims poisoned him?

    • I did refute JihadBob. He quoted verse 4:76 out of context, and I quoted the verse just after it 4:90 which CLEARLY states that Muslims are not allowed to fight peaceful non-Muslims.

      Islamophobia is based on misquoting the Quran just as anti-Semitism is based on misquoting the Talmud.

  12. Hey, did anyone hear about the three Afghans protesting against Koran burning being killed by German Troops today?

    So much for free speech!

  13. Oh, sorry Ahmed.
    “JihadBitch” is a nickname I gave him for his fits ranting and carping. There is also “JihadBoy” and “JihadBaby” for when he starts acting like a child.

    • Perhaps you should not insult him like that so we can clearly refute his misinformation instead of getting into a name-calling match.

  14. I’ll pre-empt any Islamophobe like Jihad Bob who wants to quote the Quran out of context.
    For example,
    They quote 2:193 without quoting 2:190.
    They quote 4:76 without quoting 4:90
    They quote 5:51 without quoting 5:69
    They quote 8:15 without quoting 8:61
    They quote 9:5 without quoting 9:6 or 9:12
    They will NEVER quote key verses like 2:62, 22:39-40, 25:63, or 60:7-9
    Because they are stumped when presented with these verses, they resort to the false canard that all the peaceful verses were abrogated. There are also thousands and thousands of Hadith of varying authenticity, so there is plenty of material for them to cite dishonestly. Islamophobia is as morally bankrupt and dishonest as anti-Semitism.

    • From the link that didn’t go through:

      “But you STILL didn’t view the context; what about verse XYZ! you plead.

      Let’s turn context around. You quote the mercy verses and I’ll say to you: “What about the context!?” and then I quote the violent verses. See? Two can play at that game.”

      • The context of all those verses is defined, and the complete picture is a simple one:

        Islam is a religion of peace in peacetime, and a religion of war that seeks to establish peace in wartime.

        • Islam is a religion of peace in peacetime, and a religion of war that seeks to establish peace in wartime.

          This is actually true. It’s a religion of peace when all the infidels have been killed off or converted, and a religion of war when there are still some infidels left.

          • Now you are confusing Islam with political Christianity and Judaism.

            Is this deliberate distortion on your part or do you honestly have no idea what you are talking about?

          • Errr no… The whole religion of peace idea is blown over. To force a religion to become full of peace reduces it to hymn singing and pointless dancing (Christianity).

            War is necessary sometimes which is why all major world religions make provisions for war. Even though Ghandhi waved pacifism around doesn’t make Hinduism a religion of peace. Take a look at India’s gigantic army and even Hindu scholars rejected Ghandhi’s non-violent teachings which were actually based on the writings of Leo Tolstoy.

          • I’m glad you’re entertained. Now why don’t you entertain me by telling more of your nonsense.

      • JihadBob, you are completely ignorant of the Quran and its orthodox interpretation. You are not seeking truth or enlightenment; you just want to validate your crass prejudice.

  15. We’ll see.

    I’ve been asking for many years now for the ‘proper’ context of v 9:29 from the Koran.

    And just as the author I quoted says, for every peaceful verse from another chapter you can cite, I can go ahead and re-quote the violent verses.

    Turnabout is only fair.

    (in fact, if you google the quotes I lifted, you can read the author’s explanation debunking the standard lines given for v9:5)

    • After 9:5 comes this verse:

      “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” (9:6)

      Again, a clear statement that Muslims are not allowed to fight or harm peaceful non-Muslims.

      After 9:29 comes this verse:

      “And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous.” (9:36)

      The phrase “as they fight against you” clearly indicates that those referred to in 9:29 are those who fight Muslims first.

      Muhammad Asad, a famous translator of the Quran, explains 9:29 this way: “The above injunction to fight is relevant only in the event of aggression committed against the Muslim community or state, or in the presence of an unmistakable threat to its security: a view which has been shared by that great Islamic thinker, Muhammad Abduh.”

      FYI, Muhammad Abduh was the Grand Mufti of Egypt.

      • So 9:6 requires that non-Muslims need to “seek the protection” of Muslims in order to be spared from violence. In other words, they need to become dhimmis. How is that a good thing for a non-Muslim?

        9:29 is used by Muslims who view any non-Muslim action as an act of aggression. Christians and Jews living in Islamic lands and not paying the jizya with willing submission is an act of aggression. Christians sharing their faith with Muslims is an act of aggression, and is punishable by death in the Islamic world. Even refusing to acknowledge Allah as God, or Muhammad as the prophet, is an act of aggression. Many Muslims believe that no non-Muslim is innocent, and is therefore a legitimate target.

        • Wow, looks to me like somebody is interpreting verses themselves. Since when did seeking the protection of Muslims suddenly become the need to become dhimmis. Interesting because to you people, the dhimma status is of that of being humiliated…but now it’s seeking protection. Do me a favor, and let Spencer know of this little development k? Anyway, little tip….view that verse in the context (gasp!) of a war. If any of the enemy seeks protection (you know, from being killed), deliver him to a safe place. Apparently to you, “a safe place means magically transforming into a dhimmi. *claps hands*

          • The verse demands good treatment of prisoners of war. But even as prisoners they are not to be treated as prisoners but taken to a safe place.

            How did the US army treat prisoners at Abu Ghraib? The monsters raped and tortured prisoners. Only one person was dismissed and she even said her superiors ordered her to do so.

            America is supposed to be civilised but sometimes it becomes animalistic. In terms of treating prisoners, Islam definitely shows the way forward.

    • Now that I’ve explained the correct context to you with a citation from an authoritative Muslim scholar (the Grand Mufti of Egypt), are you going to argue further in your ignorance, or will you accept the truth when it comes to you?

      By the way, if Google is your main source for information, then it is no wonder that people like you or Terry Jones are horribly misinformed. You are what information scientists call “information illiterate.” Have you ever talked to a mainstream Muslim scholar and asked him about 9:29? I bet you have not. Do you seriously want to learn the interpretation of Quran or are you just a keyboard warrior? Rather, I think you follow Spencer because he makes you feel good about your prejudices.

  16. Spencer’s inconsistencies and contradictions are of no surprise. Islamophobes like that Terry Jones fellow have trouble making up their minds.

  17. ““And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous.” (9:36)

    The phrase “as they fight against you” clearly indicates that those referred to in 9:29 are those who fight Muslims first. ”

    Unfortunately it doesn’t since v 9:36 is quite clearly referring to pagans whereas 9:29 instructs Muslims to wage war against the people of the book.

    As for 9:5, I won’t be discussing the verse here since there’s already an article on it if you just google the quote.

    I won’t re-slay the dead.

    • You are so confident but you cannot quote a single qualified scholar to back up what you say. You just project your opinions on the text. You can’t even read Arabic. You are just here to argue. You do not care about the truth.

        • Really, do you have any way to prove that? Or are you just projecting shallow statements. You know, proving a negative is damn near impossible. I’d like to see you try.

        • Arabic can be translated, but that’s not the point. Knowledge of Arabic means access to sources from the religious tradition in a sustained and academically rigorous fashion, unlike what has been shown elsewhere.

          It also means understanding the connections between various terms used in the Qur’an and other sources to more accurately aid in translation, such as “taghut” which I commented on above.

  18. “Now that I’ve explained the correct context to you with a citation from an authoritative Muslim scholar (the Grand Mufti of Egypt), are you going to argue further in your ignorance, or will you accept the truth when it comes to you?”

    Aren’t you just selectively quoting one Muslim scholar (or, actually Muhammad Asad is) who happens to agree with you?

    As Muslims have told me for several years now, the Koran is a clear and complete book – Muslims do not need scholars to interpret the Koran for them.

    I was taking their own advice when I read the Koran and found that not a single verse in the ninth surah provides any ‘context’ to v 9:29.

    If Muslims want to interpret the passage based on its perceived historical context, that’s fine. But if we interpret the Koran through that method, then it is no longer a complete book and its passages clear.

    • “One Muslim scholar” who happened to be the Grand Mufti of Egypt who speaks for thousands and thousands of qualified scholars at Al-Azhar University and around the world. Like I said, you are just here to argue. You do not care to understand how Muslims really understand the Quran.

      Indeed, the Quran is a complete and clear book with many verses that encourage peace and articulate the same Just War theory that is the basis of international law today. This was stated by Shaykh Ali Gomaa, current Grand Mufti of Egypt, in the Washington Post:

      http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/11/egypts_grand_mufti_responds_to_fort_hood_shootings.html

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701863.html

      Do you know more about the Quran? Or the current Grand Mufti of Egypt? Or are you going to pull out the taqiyya card?

    • You will not accept any evidence I bring forth. No matter what I say you will never change your ignorant and prejudice opinion.

      “Go, and say to this people: ‘Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”
      (Isaiah 6:9-10)

  19. Regarding the whole ‘Quran burning controversy’, I think the Islamophobes won in the end–an Afghan protester died.

  20. JBlob:As Muslims have told me for several years now, the Koran is a clear and complete book – Muslims do not need scholars to interpret the Koran for them. I was taking their own advice when I read the Koran and found that not a single verse in the ninth surah provides any ‘context’ to v 9:29.

    How do you go from “Muslims do not need scholars to interpret the Koran for them” to “I read the Koran and found that not a single verse………..”? Are you a Muslim so that you don’t need a scholar to interpret the Koran for you? You’ve shot yourself on the foot again Bob!

  21. Remember, JihadBob is not a monolith! There is no one JihadBob and JihadBob changes to suit the time and place.

    There is JihadBob, JihadBlob, JihadBitch, JihadBoy, JihadBaby, JihadBabe, JihadBoob, etc.

    When the opinion of a certain Muslim scholar suits him, he will accept it, when it doesn’t he will reject it–he will reject it especially when it is an inconvenient opinion held by the vast majority of Muslims.

    Thus, JihadBob changes depending on the situation.

  22. LoL.

    I’m more than happy to quote commentaries on the sword verse till showing that many Muslim theologians have interpreted the passage in a way that promotes perpetual warfare against non-Muslim nations – I refer you to Sherman Jackson’s article on offensive Jihad war in early Islam.

    The point I’m making is that the Koranic verse, 9:29, does not lend itself to the interpretation that the passage is only referring to defensive warfare against non-Muslims.

    Justin already partially quoted one passage from the Koran but upon further analysis, it was revealed that the passage was actually only referring to the Pagans Allah calls for the beheading of initially in the chapter.

    So, we’re back to square one. The textual context of v 9:29 does not support the modern apologetic/revisionist interpretations that the verse’s call for fighting against Jews and Christians is only speaking in terms of self defense.

    • Sorry JihadBob, which article are you referring to? This one? I don’t think you read the same article as me, if that’s the case; you have completely misrepresented the thrust of Jackson’s arguments. [Readers – please read for yourself at the link above].

      In contextualising the state of affairs at the time of the Qur’anic revelation, Jackson does, in fact, quote Prof. Fred Donner, to the effect that in pre-Islamic Arabia, “a ‘state of war’ was assumed to exist between one’s tribe and all others, unless a particular treaty or agreement had been reached with another tribe establishing amicable relations.” And furthermore, that this state “characterized the pre-modern world in general”, which is simply history.

      Through discussing the pre-modern world-view mentioned above, he shows that “The purpose of jihad, in other words, is to provide for the security and freedom of the Muslims in a world that kept them under constant threat.”

      Apart from these, I guess you missed the parts where he noted that “not only was peace not the prevailing medieval order, it was part of the medieval unimaginable”; in which case, why would any pre-modern Muslim authority even conceive of such a situation? As Jackson also makes clear further in his article.

      I guess you also failed to note the section where Jackson discusses the modern world:

      The assumed relationship, in other words, among nations and peoples in both the Qur’an and pre-modern Islamdom was one of hostility. In such a context, jihad emerged as the only means of preserving the physical integrity of the Muslim community. The 20th century has introduced, however, major changes to this situation. Beginning with the Covenant of the League of Nations after WWI and culminating in the signing of the United Nations Charter after WWII, the territorial integrity of every nation on earth has been rendered inviolable. In effect, this development dismantled the general “state of war” and established peace as the assumed and normal relationship between all nations. This was an unprecedented development in the history of the world, certainly as Muslims had known it.

      Nor his section following this that:

      Contrary to the situation dictated by a prevailing “state of war,” under a “state of peace,” there is no obligation to wage aggressive jihad. Classical law manuals do not reflect this view (Ibn Rushd being the exception that proves the rule); nor should one expect them to. For not only was peace not the prevailing medieval order, it was part of the medieval “unimaginable.” By contrast, numerous modern jurists, from Rashid Rida to ‘Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf to Wahbah al-Zuhayli, have confirmed Islam’s commitment to peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims.

      Nor the note (n38) where he states “One should note that even if it should be concluded that jihad against America is a communal obligation, this would not justify the terrorist attacks of September 11. For the law of jihad does not condone terrorism, which Islamic law basically defines as publicly directed violence against which the reasonable citizen, Muslim or non-Muslim, is unable to take safe-keeping measures.” and where he asks us to view his article on Domestic Terrorism in the Islamic Legal Tradition for further discussion of this.

    • It doesn’t matter that “defense only” is not stipulated in 9:29, while it’s stipulated elsewhere in the Qur’an, and all the verses of the Qur’an are consistent with each other. The key specifics are not provided in 9:29, but are provided elsewhere in the Qur’an.

      It’s interesting that 9:29 doesn’t state the REASON to fight them, which is pretty important if you’re trying to decide if it’s talking about defensive/preemptive fighting or offensive fighting.

      • Let’s see what v 9:29 says. Maybe it will tell us the reason Allah gives for fighting non-believers:

        Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. Koran 9:29

        Ok, that was easy-peasy.

        We learn from the following passage that Muslims are to fight unbelievers and that fighting unbelievers is tied in with paying tribute to Muslims and having non-Muslims feeling themselves subdued.

        No self defense there. Just a good old verse demanding brute force against other people.

        • I don’t see the reason mentioned at all, only that Muslims are commanded to fight them and subdue them, which is a fairly standard practice in war; to fight and subdue enemies.

        • I don’t see the actual reason provided in that verse, only that it’s telling Muslims to fight and subdue them, which is a fairly standard practice in war; to fight and subdue enemies.

    • And Sherman Jackson explained in that scholarly article the context behind those commentaries with conclusive evidence (i.e. all pre-modern states were in a state of defacto war). He concludes that the aim of peace has always been the intention of the Quran and the Prophet. In his article “Jihad and the Modern World” he concludes, “I have argued that Islam is a religion of peace. I have based this argument on the assertion that a prevailing “state of war,” rather than difference of religion, was the raison d’être of jihad and that this “state of war” has given way in modern times to a global “state of peace” that rejects the unwarranted violation of the territorial sovereignty of all nations.”

      It is absolutely amazing you cite a scholar who completely refutes what you say. That is typical of Spencerites; selective citation. It is the modus operandi of stubborn bigots worldwide. In any case, these authentic hadith also refute you.

      Abu Umamah, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “Our Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, commanded us to spread peace.” [Sunan Ibn Majah, #3693]

      On the authority of Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, may Allah be pleased with him, who narrated that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “Worship the Most Merciful, and spread peace.” [Sunan Ibn Majah, #3694]

      • Fundamentalists proof text.

        I can quite hadith supporting my point of view all day long until my fingers get tired.

        I’m more interested in *how* Muslims interpret these passages.

        And as Sherman Jackson admitted, classical scholars interpreted the Koran as allowing offensive warfare against non-Muslim states.

        I would also take issue with Sherman Jackson’s interpretation of history if he believes empires were constantly warring with each other. That may be true some of the time, but not all of the time.

        More importantly, the Roman Byzantine empire, Ethiopian empire, Armenian kingdom and other Christian states did not develop a theological interpretation of the New Testament as allowing for perpetual warfare against non-Christians for the purposes of spreading Christianity over all non-Christian peoples.

        I’ll concede the Latin Church in practice did implement this in the Baltic states and Charlemagne carried out similar practices as well, but there was never a doctrine of offensive holy war in Christianity and these were isolated incidents in a history of nearly two thousand years that stretched six continents.

        • Classical interpretations are to be understood in the context of classical times. You cannot just arbitrarily take a classical interpretation and say it applies outside of its context.

          In classical times, unless there was some treaty/pact, or some trade thing going on, hostility was the de facto. Therefore, interpretations from that time period of texts that have to do with that subject matter, are going to be interpreted to reflect that.

          Today, however, it’s a different game with different rules, so such interpretations may no longer be applicable.

          Therefore, in order for your case to have any basis, then you must find a modern, mainstream interpretation that is consistent with those classical ones.

        • JihadBob, I’m beginning to think you are Robert Spencer himself. You are following right out of his playbook. It goes like this:

          Step 1 – make a baseless claim
          Step 2 – get refuted
          Step 3 – ignore or change subject
          Step 4 – Rinse and repeat

          We could talk all day about “how” fundamentalist Christians interpret the Bible, but it doesn’t represent Christianity. What matters is mainstream interpretation. You have not been able to deny the fact that the mainstream interpretation of the Quran is peaceful; a key point that destroys the basis of your hate-mongering. Once again you “move the goal posts.”

          I am finished arguing with you because there is no point in arguing with someone who is not interested in scholarly truth. You are only interested in validating prejudice and bigotry.

          The Messenger of Allah said, “I guarantee a house in Paradise for the one who gives up arguing even if he is right.”

          I want that house, so goodbye.

        • As one last point, yes Christians did develop a doctrine that encouraged warfare against non-Christian states. As the legend foes, Emperor Constantine saw a vision of the cross and heard a voice, “with this as your standard you shall have victory.”

          This is another typical Spencer tactic. You simply refuse to apply the same standards to your own faith that you apply to Islam.

          “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3)

        • Classical interpretations of any given text, can only be understood properly, in the context of classical times.

          In classical times, unless there was some treaty/pact or trade thing going on, hostility was the de facto rule of the game. Therefore, any given interpretation from that time period of a text regarding that subject matter, is inevitably going to reflect that.

          Today, however, it’s a different game with different rules, and a different mindset. Therefore, those classical interpretations may not be applicable in today’s world. Hence, in order for the case to be made that the classical interpretations are still seen as applicable to today’s world, you would need to find contemporary, mainstream interpretations that are consistent with the classical interpretations.

    • It seems my lengthy comment did not pass the spam filter due to the links, so here is a repost although much has already been stated. Hopefully the quotes will be useful for those who don’t have time to read the entire journal article JihadBob cites in “support” of his point.

      Sorry JihadBob, which article are you referring to? This one? I don’t think you read the same article as me, if that’s the case; you have completely misrepresented the thrust of Jackson’s arguments. [Readers – please read for yourself at the link above].

      In contextualising the state of affairs at the time of the Qur’anic revelation, Jackson does, in fact, quote Prof. Fred Donner, to the effect that in pre-Islamic Arabia, “a ‘state of war’ was assumed to exist between one’s tribe and all others, unless a particular treaty or agreement had been reached with another tribe establishing amicable relations.” And furthermore, that this state “characterized the pre-modern world in general”, which is simply history. He cites Donner as a source for this, and if you disagree, please cite another academically sound source to support your argument.

      Through discussing the pre-modern world-view mentioned above, he shows that “The purpose of jihad, in other words, is to provide for the security and freedom of the Muslims in a world that kept them under constant threat.”

      Apart from these, I guess you missed the parts where he noted that “not only was peace not the prevailing medieval order, it was part of the medieval ‘unimaginable'”; in which case, why would any pre-modern Muslim authority even conceive of such a situation? As Jackson also makes clear further in his article.

      I guess you also failed to note the section where Jackson discusses the modern world:

      The assumed relationship, in other words, among nations and peoples in both the Qur’an and pre-modern Islamdom was one of hostility. In such a context, jihad emerged as the only means of preserving the physical integrity of the Muslim community. The 20th century has introduced, however, major changes to this situation. Beginning with the Covenant of the League of Nations after WWI and culminating in the signing of the United Nations Charter after WWII, the territorial integrity of every nation on earth has been rendered inviolable. In effect, this development dismantled the general ‘state of war’; and established peace as the assumed and normal relationship between all nations. This was an unprecedented development in the history of the world, certainly as Muslims had known it.

      Nor his section following this that:

      Contrary to the situation dictated by a prevailing ‘state of war’ under a ‘state of peace’ there is no obligation to wage aggressive jihad. Classical law manuals do not reflect this view (Ibn Rushd being the exception that proves the rule); nor should one expect them to. For not only was peace not the prevailing medieval order, it was part of the medieval ‘unimaginable.’ By contrast, numerous modern jurists, from Rashid Rida to ‘Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf to Wahbah al-Zuhayli, have confirmed Islam’s commitment to peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims.

      [i.e. Muslim scholars writing after this prevailing state of peace developed – why would anyone before then be expected to write on such a topic? Islamic law and thought are constantly developing, they do not remain static.]

      Nor did you obviously see Jackson’s note (n38) where he states “One should note that even if it should be concluded that jihad against America is a communal obligation, this would not justify the terrorist attacks of September 11. For the law of jihad does not condone terrorism, which Islamic law basically defines as publicly directed violence against which the reasonable citizen, Muslim or non-Muslim, is unable to take safe-keeping measures.”

  23. Regarding the Ground Zero/community centre mosque, I have two questions:

    1. Why have they named it Cordoba House after the first western city in Spain to be a Muslim conquest?

    2. Why is the official opening of the Ground Zero mosque/community centre been planed for 9/11/11 on the 10th anniversary of the WTC attacks?

    • 1. That wasn’t the intention at all. Do maybe, 2 minutes of research on the “Ground Zero Mosque” to learn that little tidbit of facts. And besides, they changed the name to Park51 so douchebags like you won’t bitch about centuries old conquests.

        • I’m assuming this means you concede that notion #1 is bogus.

          Oh, and about the second one, I’m sorry…I honestly thought you were joking. Tell you what, why don’t you give me tangible proof of Park51 opening on that day. And no, Spencer and Geller don’t count as proof.

          I however can show that this is a straight-up, balf-faced lie. Can’t you tell when Geller is cooking up conspiracies? Or do you wholeheartedly believe everything she says? I’d bet on the latter.

          Anyway, here’s a quote from Ro Scheff, chair of the Financial District committee:

          “When they came to us they had not even hired an architect, they had not raised any funds,” said Sheff. “They said were hoping to break ground in the next three to five years. That erroneous story about [opening] on September 11, 2011 is nonsense.”

          LMFAO. They haven’t even hired an architect yet, and you think it’ll be finished this time next year?

  24. > “As one last point, yes Christians did develop a doctrine that encouraged warfare against non-Christian states. As the legend foes, Emperor Constantine saw a vision of the cross and heard a voice, “with this as your standard you shall have victory.””

    What was the name of this doctrine?

    Could you tell me if Constantine led an army and conquered lands prior to his conversion to Christianity and if Pagan Roman emperors before him did the same thing?

    • I’ll answer you one more time, just because it is so much fun refuting you Mr. Spencer. I don’t speak Roman or Greek so I don’t know what they called Constantine’s doctrine of Christian conquest. Let’s fast forward to the Christian Dominion Theologians in America today who want to force Christianity on everyone. From George Grant, a leading dominionist writer in The Changing of the Guard, Biblical Principles for Political Action:

      “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.” (pp. 50-51)

      http://www.theocracywatch.org/relig_inst.htm#Dominion

      Sounds like a jihadist, but no! It’s right wing Christians in America who want “dominion” over all people. So yes, Mr. Spencer, Christians do have a supremacist, expansionist plot to take over the world. It’s called the doctrine of “Dominion Theology.” You would know because you hold that theology.

      By the way, you did exactly what I said you would: ignore my facts, change the subject, move the goal posts. That is a sign of your moral and intellectual bankruptcy, Mr. Spencer.

    • America is supposed to be civilised but sometimes it becomes animalistic. In terms of treating prisoners, Islam definitely shows the way forward.

      Yeah, I saw the beheading videos. Really ground breaking stuff.

      • When are you going to realize that just because a Muslim does something, doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily because of Islam?

        How daft does someone need to be, to honestly believe that everything someone does, is because of their religion?

        A Muslim eats dinner… is that because of his religion?

        A Muslim crosses the street… is that because of his religion?

        A Muslim commits a crime… is that because of his religion?

        It’s so unbelievably retarded to think that way. The reality, whether you choose to accept it or not, is that religion is neither necessarily the only reason, nor necessarily even the primary reason a Muslim may do something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *