When Mr Spencer is too busy


As you may remember, I wrote, during the ‘Islamo-Fascism’ week campaign, to the organisers and supporters of this event questioning their a-historical use of Fascism (something that they never experienced neither directly nor indirectly) but of which they seem to be great experts in every sense.

Today, I found, by chance, that the lack of an answer to my rather old post, was not, as I assumed, a clear evidence of ‘menefreghismo’ of fascist memory, or a clear dismissal of an academic discussion on the issue, but actually a matter of time. Indeed, today we can read Spencer replying to one of his worshipers,

Sheik:

Thanks. I hadn’t seen that first one before. It is patronizing, but I may answer his questions if time permits at some point. One glaring problem is that he ignores my many statements about how many, if not most, Muslims have no interest in waging jihad, and pretends that I think most or all do. […]’

Of course, I hope that Mr Spencer can find the time to debate, correctly and academically, the topic with me and also clarify why I am ‘patronizing’ only for, as I have done with Dr MacEoin, daring to ask questions.

Yet I have the impression that busy Mr Spencer will grant me only a short, Dr MacEoin style, comment.Indeed, I even left a clear link to my post (to start the debate), during Islamo-Fascism week, on FrontPage Mag.They took the time to snob a much shorter, sarcastic and humorous, post on Tabsir written by Prof. Daniel Varisco.

Of course, Mr Spencer & Co. are extremely good in sophistic polemic, but they seem in difficulties when the discussion is open and civilised. I would invite also Mr Spencer to visit his worshiper Sheik’s blog, and let us know whether that kind of anti-Islamo-Fascism is really what he works and hopes for.

Indeed, my fascist grandfather used to say that Mussolini was not a bad guy; he actually had good intentions, he wanted to defend the Italian and western civilization from the evil Communists and their allies, the Jews. Unfortunately, my fascist grandfather used to also say, Mussolini surrounded himself with worshipers who were real fanatics, the famous ‘camice nere’ (Black Shirts).

I wonder, using the story as a metaphor, whether the (maybe) well intentioned Mr Spencer (whose ideas, in any case, I fully disagree with) is, year after year, ending in the same uncontrollable situation my grandfather had described.

Gabriele

72 thoughts on “When Mr Spencer is too busy

  1. I for one would be interested in seeing how this turns out! Keep up the good work – study and methodical research is what is needed, not polemic.

    Best for the year ahead :)

  2. Islam does not teach to wage war against all non Muslims till they are “subjugated” as Robert Spencer has falsely accused Islam of. The reason behind Jihad was to protect the world from the genocide of Christianity, based on the Quran and Sunnah. I recently had a debate wit him and when this point was raised Spencer ran away like a coward. If he was honest, he should have attempted to refute my argument. But he could not.

    Thanks,
    Nadir Ahmed
    http://www.ExamineTheTruth.com

  3. Mr. Marranci (sorry for misspeling your name in my previous post),
    Briefly looking through your blog I noted some mismatch between your tad humorous style and style of Mr. Spencer. Unlike you he pays much more attention to the factual correctness of his assertions rather than on pragmatic power of his sentences. This may result in a communication problem between you and him.

    Have you considered other critics of Islam such as Ali Sina as possible opponents for debates on Islam? Ali Sina is highly learned scholar of Islam originally from Iran. He is known mostly among Muslims . Ali Sina believes that there is no chance that Islam will ever be in peace with the West. He believes that the main reasons of this are the mean character of the prophet of Islam whom *all* Muslim consider as perfect example to emulate as well as fascist/antihuman nature of the doctrine. His challenge is as follows:

    “Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay

    $50,000 U.S. dollars

    to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:

    a narcissist a misogynist a rapist
    a pedophile a lecher a torturer
    a mass murderer a cult leader an assassin
    a terrorist a mad man a looter ”

    ref: http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

    He debated those as well as other points with eminent scholars such as Grand Ayatollah Montazeri from Iran or Javed Ahmad Ghamidi from Pakistan who are also high profile officials in their countries (ref: http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates.htm)

    He have not had debates with Western scholars and if you happen to have debates with Ali Sina I would enjoy reading them.

  4. What a dishonest and spurious little debater you are. You know full well that Mr. Spencer has never mentioned the details, such as the ‘camice nere’, of fascism. You have raised such details and you, and you alone, are attempting to tar his reputation with the long-discredited tactic of guilt by association.

    This sort of dishonest debating tactic is, I’m afraid, not going to wash with modern people. We are all aware of the fact that Islam has to provide some answers for what it does in the name of its God – random executions, terrorism, suppression of women’s rights, hatred and violence towards gays, denial of the fundamental democratic principle, suppression of other faiths – but you, it seems, would rather give Islam a free pass.

    Why?

    Would you give the same free pass to radical Hinduism or fundamentalist Christianity? Would you give the same free pass to Taoism or Buddhism – Animism or Wicca? I doubt it!

    Islam is NOT a religion just like all the others but you insist on seeing it as such. Islam, as can be amply proved, is a supremacist, fascistic, dangerous and evil cult. Muslims, however, are just people caught up in the world and are no better, or worse, than any other.

    Your problem is that you confuse the religion with its adherents. Such simplistic confusion is all that most of us have come to expect from the likes of you. You are incapable of the reasoning separation of the people from the creed and, as a consequence, you deliberately, and with malice aforethought and evil in your heart, lambast your betters and those more reasoning and rational than you are – those, such as (but not only), Mr. Spencer.

    You confuse and conflate (quite deliberately, I think) Islam and the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence with the ‘ordinary Muslim in the street’. You confuse and conflate the worries which many Western analysts, such as Mr. Spencer, have about the terror groups which use the Koran and the Hadith for justification for their actions with some mythical religious intolerance of your own devising which you project onto those of us who disagree with you.

    Moreover, it seems to me that you do so without ever having read or considered the verses of violence (supremacist verses, violent narcisistic verses, violent and disgusting verses) in the Koran itself – the later verses: those verses which instruct Muslims to wage war against us, the unbelievers in Islam. How, exactly, do you interpret those verses? Or do you deny, as so many do, their very existence? Do you, as so many do, claim that the English translations of the Koran which I possess are deficient and that I cannot possibly grasp the complexity of such verses unless I speak, read and write Arabic?

    Come now, answer the substantive questions:

    1) What, exactly, is the position of Islam with respect to the the Infidel (as Islam sees us)?

    2) What, exactly, is the position of women in a Sharia Law dominated society?

    3) What, exactly, is the position of gay people in a Sharia Law dominated society?

    4) What, exactly, is the meaning of Western, pluralistic democracy as interpreted by Sharia Law?

    When answering these questions please feel free to quote from the Koran and the Hadith and, more, to quote authoritative Islamic scholars from any era.

    But, and more than anything else, please answer this:

    5) Why do all so-called Islamic terrorist groups quote various verses from the Koran as justification for their actions?

    and then tell me, all of us,

    6) Are they wrong to do so?

    I look forward to your reply, but I’m not holding my breath.

  5. I have seen and read much of Robert Spencer. He is anything but a sophist. He relies on what dawood encourages, study and methodical research.

    Have a debate with him, I’ll be interested to see how it goes. But I’ll warn you that you had better know your historical sources of Islam. He is an expert.

  6. Dr. Marranci, I have read Mr. Robert Spencer’s books as well as checked out his JihadWatch site and find him to be a very thoughtful person and to be open to discussions about Islam. Unfortunately, it is actually the people who claim he is unresponsive who are more likely to engage in drive-by assassination of his character or in making ad-hominem attacks on him.

  7. Your kind of sneering, condescending tone with those who disagree with you is what I have come to expect from leftist academics. I would be interested in hearing your definition of “correct academic debate”, since the concept of debate in academia has been overtaken by the one-sidedness of the academy. It is hard to debate with your fellow academics when you almost without exception subscribe to the same world view. Having been a conservative in academe, I can personally attest to the marginalization of any view but that of the leftists. It seems to me that leftists have lost their instinct for self-preservation. The jihadists want to cut your head off. They want to close all of your ivory towers. They will not tolerate or allow your kind of free speech. But you think that this kind of “fiddling while Rome burns” is of practical use. There are a lot of us out here in America who want to preserve our civilization, our Constitution, and our lives. You, sir, are what Lenin called a “useful idiot”. Be thankful that better men than you protect your right to be such a public idiot.

  8. Can you shave off that cheesy moustache? It irritates me.

    In the USA it is considered pretentious to use “Dr.” as a title if you have a PhD (I don’t). I even address my physicians by their first names.

  9. You could no sooner successfully debate Spencer on Islam than he could you in your specific anthropological field.

    Spencer’s points were clear and direct on his poting at jihadwatch.org.

    Your “questions” as they were, belie that your are quite unfamiliar with his work in generaL, but you aren’t the first, nor will you be the last.

  10. Robert Spencer is an enlightened, brilliant individual. One day in the future he will be regarded as a Western hero who contributed mightily to the saving of Western civilization from the Rise of Barbarism (Islam).

    Whereas, you, Marranci, are an imbecile, and will be rememembered as the short-sighted ostrich imbecile you are.l

  11. Dear Stephany,

    thank you so much for your kind and intelligent comment. I think that this is a clear example of what I have defined a Spencer-cult.

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  12. You’re welcome, Marranci. Sorry you can’t face reality.

    Spencer will be regarded as great as Washington and Lincoln. So, if you think admirers’ of W and L are a “cult,” then that’s your problem.

    The “cult” is Islam. A death cult of violence, mayhem, murder. As I said, you are short-sighted and in-denial. I realize it must be difficult to confront one’s imbecility, but try, why don’t you? Good Luck! Buona Fortuna!

  13. Love your “Taqiyya,” Nadir Ahmed. Well-practiced in telling lies to the Infidel, are you? Just like your role model, evil Warlord Mass-Murderer of Jews and Christians Rapist Thief Slave-Owner Pedophile Polygamist illiterate Barbarian – Mohammed. Oh, did I leave out “false prophet?” Right – false prophet with his pagan Moon deity, al-ilah, that doesn’t exist.

    “Taqiyya” Ahemed!

    Thank You, Spencer for your work in saving us from the Barbarians.

  14. “Your kind of sneering, condescending tone with those who disagree with you is what I have come to expect from leftist academics.” –posted by AynRandRules

    So right. And, they can dish it out, but can’t take it! They love ad hominem attacks on others, but whimper like the bullies they are when confronted.

    You bet I’m “intelligent,” Marranci. As for “kind” – why, you hypocrite! Look to yourself, Marranci.

  15. LOL! “Dr.” Marranci is not posting my recent comments!

    But, that’s to be expected.

    Lei e un vigliacco, Marranci.

  16. Allright! Comments!

    I wonder…is il dottore Marranci an Italian Catholic, or a Mohammedan? Anyone know?

  17. “When answering these questions please feel free to quote from the Koran and the Hadith and, more, to quote authoritative Islamic scholars from any era.” –posted by OliverPCamford to Marranci

    Oliver, Marranci couldn’t quote one line from the Koran, ahadith, or Sirah if his life depended on it!

    Spencer can, however. And how. As Spencer is a scholar of the aforementioned Islamic texts.

    Meanwhile, Marranci is sitting idly at cafe greco, on his fourth espresso, watching the world through “la vie en rose.”

  18. Dear Stephany

    I am happy that you are such a fan of my blog that you have left so many interesting messages, but, as you can understand, I cannot post hundreds of them which repeat the same things.

    They start to look like spam. I also would like that you have the decency of at least signing them with your real name and surname as I do.

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  19. “which repeat the same things”

    Scusa, they all say DIFFERENT things. The real reason you’re threatening me is because they tell the truth, which you can’t stand.

    “hundreds of them”

    Hmmm, I count – 9. Nine! And you say “hundreds!” My God you are a master of dissimulation, just like Mohammedans. But, so easy to see through – as transparent as glass.

    LOL – you’re not “happy!” You want posts that agree with you!

    In no way do I have to expose myself as a Commenter. Esp. when Mohammedans are so fond of beheading. Mi dispiace, but I have to protect myself from the Beheaders.

    You know very well my comments aren’t spam. Wow, you’re such a liar! No wonder you side with Islam, which is nothing but a pack of lies made up by Mohammed the Warlord.

    BTW, where are your other Commenters, Marranci? Why aren’t you publishing them? Oh, haven’t got any more? LOL!

  20. Although Spencer and his followers routinely criticize the lifestyle of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), particularly issues of multiple wives and concubinage, it seems like Spencer himself has several male and female concubines cleaning up after his polemical droppings.

    I mean comparing Spencer to Lincoln and Washington is not only insulting to all Americans, but also to any sentient being. But that can only be explained by the fact that Stephany must be one of Spencer paid concubines……….Otherwise, why on earth would anyone spend the time attacking an unknown anthropologist and defending a Christian crusader like Spencer?

  21. Those who have suffered from the business end of Islam will look for support wherever they can find it. Also, they will seem obtuse to you because they are not especially interested in Islamic history and fine distinctions about the motives of casual moslems. They want to know how to deal with the active ones.

  22. It seems as if the intellectually bankrupt Spencer fraternity are out in full force on this one Dr Gabriele. The fact remains that Spencer, who has not studied classical Islam, rose to fame after 9/11 and his works are characterised by poor referencing, context-dropping, shoddy field work and a whole host of other flaws which render such work as unreliable. The book, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islam Treats Non-Muslims (New York: Prometheus Books, 2005) is a case in point. Despite its impressive size, it is devoid of any serious source referencing and citations and such descrepancies are not adequate when researching detailed and intricate issues such as ‘how Islam treats non-Muslims’. Furthermore, to publish a book on how ‘Islam treats non-Muslims’ and then proceed to quote little or nothing from Muslim scholars and their main works within this field is deceptive to say the least. One of the other glaring errors that Spencer has committed within his writing on Islam (and is likewise committed by Patrick Sookhdeo, Craiig Winn, Bat Ye’or, Trifkovic, Nina Shea and others) is that they claim that Islam only views the world as being “Dar ul-Islam and Dar ul-Harb (the abode of Islam and the abode of warfare)”, thus implying that Islam views the rest of the world which is non-Muslims as being “an abode of war”. This is one of the more blatant errors that these guys fall into, as it is well known within classical Islam that Muslim scholars view the abodes as being of Islam or of disbelief (‘kufr’) and these abodes of disbelief are further broken down into: Dar ul-‘Ahd (abodes of agreement), Dar ul-Aman (abodes of safety and security) and Dar ul-Harb – and not just Dar ul-harb only.

    Moreover, Spencer is one of the most evasive polemicists on the earth today, especially when it comes to debating those who have some qualification in the field of Islam. Recently, Spencer more or less chickened out of a well-organised and planned debate with the Muslim author Jalal Abualrub in America. The debate was to be organised at a location of Spencer choosing, with a moderator according to Spencer’s choosing, at a venue chosen by Spencer, video-taped and recorded for distribution: http://www.islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=187

    In any case, on youtube there are two very good refutations of Spencer’s ideas and writings namely here: http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=na7ofI4MoLA and by a theology student here:

    http://ru.youtube.com/profile?user=ozzycda

    Until the likes of Spencer, Sookhdeo, Winn, Trifkovic, Shea et al. are prepared to accept criticisms and challenges to their questionable work they will never be taken seriously by those in the academic community who study Islam and by Muslim scholars.

    ‘AbdulHaq

  23. Nadir Ahmed said Islam does not teach to wage war against all non Muslims till they are “subjugated” as Robert Spencer has falsely accused Islam of.

    Does this mean Nadir rejects 9:29 which says Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and his Messenger have forbidden — such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book [i.e., Christians and Jews] – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled

    Also Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 19: The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa’l-Siyar) 19:4294 says Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war …. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. [A special tax that Jews and Christians must pay to live in a Muslim country. Followers of other religions are just killed outright if they refuse to convert to Islam.] If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. [i.e. they must convert to Islam, pay a special very high tax so they can live as second class citizens, or die.]

  24. Well Doc, seems like you’ve ruffled some feathers as the rabid dogs from JihadWatch seem to be out in full-force. Especially that “Stephany” person, she really seems to have her knickers in a twist.

  25. It always amazes me that those who seem to “know” so much about Islam do exactly the same thing extremists and jihadists do – quoting random verses and hadith with most of the important aspects that seek to further their “interpretation” contained inside parenthesis which do not exist in the actual texts themselves.

    The lack of contextual understanding is baffling – especially because both pronounce repeatedly that the Qur’an is the “literal word of Allah” – every letter, every context of every utterance and its wider social and historical circumstances therefore would have the utmost importance in understanding. Yet both do exactly the same thing and in essence support each others assertions – that Islam is against the West, and that the “kuffar” can never accept Islam so must be fought against.

    Yet no, all we can do is use shaykh google to bring up some particularly nasty hadith and quotes from texts most have probably never even seen in their lives (let alone commentary on them), but reject the ongoing interpretive and explanatory tradition that collected and codified these texts in the first place, especially when they conflict with ones own grand knowledge of the Islamic tradition and all it contains.

    It is pretty clear why none of these commentators (including Mr. Spencer himself) have not been published in peer-review or presented in national and international academic conferences etc. But of course, that is because academia are just “dhummies” these days. That is why one is confined to ranting on blogs on the Internet, or being published by non-academic publishing houses and the like, attending guerrilla-style conferences against the “Islamic threat” and so on.

    Absolutely incredible!

  26. Hi dawood, Rasheed ,etc.
    My experience with Islam has to do with bribing Saudi Arabians to release Philippine indentured workers from slavery. I read the Spencer blog because it matches my own experience of moslem behavior. If you think I am ranting at you and want to get all indignant thats fine. But your arguments leave no impression on me at all.

  27. “Muhammed Hanzir”,

    My experience with Islam has to do with bribing Saudi Arabians to release Philippine indentured workers from slavery. I read the Spencer blog because it matches my own experience of moslem behavior. If you think I am ranting at you and want to get all indignant thats fine. But your arguments leave no impression on me at all.

    I’m sorry. I must have missed something as I don’t recall making any arguements by which some sort of impression could be made on you; I simply made an observation based on the sudden bombardment of comments to Doc Marranci’s blog made by Spencer-fanactics.

    As for your experience with “Islam”, what you describe sounds more like an experience with some Saudis than it does an experience with Islam. You experience Islam by practicing it or, at the very least, studying it from its proper sources, not by experiencing the (un-Islamic) behavoir of some Muslims.

  28. I would enjoy watching a debate between Robert Spencer and Marranci, but I do not believe such an event will ever take place. Not because Spencer is unwilling to participate, but because it seems that Marranci has no intention of ever doing so. Calling people names from the safety of the web appears to be more your style.

    I don’t what your beef is with infidels who have a beef with islam. 1,400 years of history reveals that islam is the exact opposite of what taqiyya practitioners claim it is.

    Religion of peace? Please! islam is as peaceful as rabies.

  29. Mohammed Hanzir: What makes your experience more suitable and useful as evidence regarding Islam than the multitude of other experiences, many of which are vastly different to yours?

  30. Dear senatortombstone

    I will be delighted with it. Yet I am sure that debating with an anthropologist, and in particular debating in the UK, with the presence of the UK media, instead of FOX, is not something that, I suppose, Mr Spencer would accept.

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  31. To: Nadir Aghmed:

    “Islam does not teach to wage war against all non Muslims till they are “subjugated” […]. The reason behind Jihad was to protect the world from the genocide of Christianity […]”

    Is this what passes for scholarly debate on this site? Islam is protecting the world against the genocide of Christianity?… I was born and raised in the Soviet Bloc so I am intimately familiar with the double-speak of totalitarianism. But this just sounds plain dumb. You won’t win this war with such silly rhetoric. I guess suicide bombs are more effective indeed.

  32. Dear Mr Andre Muzykant

    if instead of speaking of Islam in general (which I find as an anthropologist to be futile beyond the domain of beliefs or theological polemic) you would say ‘some Muslims’, I am sure that nobody would deny that there are surely issues.

    As far as your guess is concerned, unfortunately this is what some Muslims end to think. Yet maybe, instead of looking for answers in the Qur’an and traditions of different species, we need to ask why?

    For which reason do they think that these actions are ‘more effective’? I am interested in your opinion, because it seems that you have reached the same conclusion of some suicide-killers (as I prefer to call their actions).

    Let me know, why, if you were a Muslim extremist, you would have found the solution of suicide-killing more effective than rhetoric.

    thank you in advance for your kind answer.
    Gabriele

  33. Mr. Spencer is a brave and very well-spoken pioneer of our times. He debates with incredible professionalism and is a veritable expert in the field of Islam. He sticks to the facts while apologists with no real argument try to slander him with trite and superficial analogies to Nazism. Pathetic. You, Marranci, can forumlate eloquent sentences at the university level. Congratulations. But the allure of your arguments go no further than that. You are defending a hateful ideology which will stop at nothing to deceive people such as yourself in order to spread their vile “religion”. Please re-read history and leanrn about Taqiyya. Charles Martel. Muslim expansion into India. Why Sikhism was formed. Etc etc. etc.

  34. Dear Mr Canuck

    “He debates with incredible professionalism and is a veritable expert in the field of Islam’

    Well, I have read his popular works. I will be surely happy to read a peer-reviewed article of his, or a book for academics published by a major academic publisher. However, being myself in this kind of business, I can assure you that he wouldn’t make quite as much money out of it. Academic publishers offer between 2-9% in royalties.

    However, I have the impression that Mr Robert Spencer is not really interested in the advancement of scholarly debate, or in convincing scholars.

    I do not think that Robert Spencer is really interested in these kind of things. I think that he is more interested in politics, media, and journalism. Surely he will never accept a public debate, for instance, with an anthropologist.

    Happy 2008
    Gabriele

  35. Marranci, according to his biography, Spencer is not the property of Fox News, as he has appeared on the following networks: BBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, France24 and Croatia National Televison (HTV).

    Which country is the BBC based in?

  36. Infidel Canuck,

    Mr. Spencer is a brave and very well-spoken pioneer of our times. He debates with incredible professionalism and is a veritable expert in the field of Islam. He sticks to the facts while apologists with no real argument try to slander him with trite and superficial analogies to Nazism.

    That’s quite comical.

    Please re-read history and leanrn about Taqiyya.

    Heh, when a Muslim explains the so-called “evidences” you Islam-bashers bring from Islamic texts with quotes and texts from authentic Islamic source books exposing the distortions, twists and spins you put on them, all you can muster are unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty and deceit (i.e., your cries of “taqiyyah!!!!”). I guess it’s easy to accuse and slander when you’re dumbfounded by the truth.

  37. Well Mr. Marranci I certainly respect you for actually responding to some of the individuals here but as I recently found out while on Mr. Spencer’s website that the T-Shirt thing was a joke and you should lighten up rather than accuse his readers of forming a cult (unless of course that was a joke and in that event im going to look like a fool) and actually critize what he says rather than his lack of formal study, that is, if you must go after him on the basis if the evidance he brings forth not his inexperiance.

    Happy New Year,
    James

  38. I just wanted to follow up well wishings of a happy new year to say that I hope everyone had a wonderful Granada Day!

  39. I don’t understand why you say that those who commit terrorist acts are not students of Islamic theology or that Islamic theology — at least as they understand it — is not the motivation behind their attacks.

    Perhaps you are simply saying something like:

    “Religions have no motive power of their own. People acting on religious motivation really are acting based on something other psychological or social factors masked behind their putatitve religious reasons”

    or

    “It’s impossible for a great and influential world religion to have as part of its teaching violent attempts to convert people and suppress dissent”

    These seem like arguable propostitions, don’t you think?

    I mean, can’t an atheist argue that Christianity is a baleful influence on Western culture? Is that “racist”? I am a Christian and I don’t think so.

    So, why can’t a Christian or an agnostic argue that Islam is a baleful influence on people and encourages them to be violent?

    That could be right. Or it could be wrong. You have to put the specific arguments to the test.

    Mr. AbdulHaq is taking offense too easily, I think, but he is at least addressing the points the commenters make. Why not take Spencer’s arguments seriously instead of just dismissing them?

    Put him to the test point-by-point and do him the courtesy of understanding what he is saying and replying to it.

  40. Dear Jeff,

    Although I can decide one day (time allowing) to write a post which addresses these points (yet you can also read my book Jihad Beyond Islam), let me clarify why I disagree with Mr Spencer (as well as other scholars).

    Authors such as Spencer, Pipes, Hunter Lewis and Kramer have based their arguments on a monolithic understanding
    of Islam. Islam, according to these authors, has prevented Muslims enjoying modernization and left Muslims in the dark times of Middle Age.

    So Pipes, Lewis and Kramer and Spencer have suggested that to understand tragic events such as 9/11, March 11 and the recent 7/7 attacks we need to go back to medieval interpretations and to thinkers such as Ibn Taymiyya.

    These extreme essentialistic viewpoints have facilitated odd arguments, such as the claim that Muslims are conducting jihad because they wish to transform non-Muslims into Dhimmi. Although certain extremist leaders, such as Osama bin Laden, have used expressions which came from the ‘dark age’ of the Crusaders and Islamic chevaliers, it would be extremely naïve to believe that behind such Islamic retro-chic styles there could exist medieval minds.

    We know very well that the context enforces new meanings on ancient expressions. Bin Laden and his acolytes adorn themselves with a mystic aura of the past, but they speak to the present, to contemporary Muslims, not to Ottoman ghosts. Bat Ye‘or, Pipes, Lewis, Kramer Spencer, among others, prefer to believe in the extremists’ masquerade rather than trying to get behind it.

    Halliday, while reviewing Pipes’s book In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power, has argued:

    “this book, for all its range, is deeply flawed because it overstates its case, ending up with that fallacy that besets so many writers about Islam, not least of all the faithful themselves. This fallacy is essentialism – the idea, for which the evidence is rare indeed, that the behaviour of Muslims through all centuries and countries can be explained primarily by reference uniquely to their belief system.” (1984: 583)

    In another article, Halliday has strongly criticized the ‘neo-Orientalist’ and ‘apologetic’ positions, because these debates have only ‘generated much hot air’ (1997: 401).

    Halliday, rejecting the use of the traditional polemic labels, has suggested a more accurate description of these opposing academic viewpoints as ‘essentialists’ versus ‘contingencists’. So, essentialists are ‘those who argued that the Islamic world was dominated by a set of relatively enduring and unchanging processes and meaning, to be understood through the texts of Islam and the language it generated’ (1997: 400–1).

    By contrast, Halliday has defined the ‘contingencists’ as those who reject any universalistic framework and prefer to focus on the ‘contingent’ realities that exist in
    each Islamic country or socio-political situation (as Esposito). Of course, the dichotomy between these two approaches exists because of the methodology each side has employed. Hodgson (1993) has suggested that a third way may be developed, combining the essentialists’ and the contingencists’ paradigms and concluded that the main feature of any Muslim philosophy is to achieve the Islamic ideal.
    By contrast, Halliday has argued that the study of Islamic societies involves observing Muslims’ peculiarities and differences so that the student can develop different representations of the Muslim world. Nevertheless, both these ‘third ways’ have not convinced the scholarly community. Salla, among others, has argued,

    “I think that both Hodgson’s and Halliday’s attempts to find the ‘middle ground’ or ‘a third position’ are unconvincing. As far as Hodgson is concerned, his notion of the ‘cultural unit of Islam’, is not, as Leonard Binder [1988] the middle ground position of ‘pragmatic orientalism’, but a notion that is firmly
    located in the essentialist-contingencist debate in terms of an essentialist categorisation that is sensitive to cultural variation. It is therefore a variant of scholarly approaches that Said recommends in Orientalism – what Binder suggests are instances of ‘good orientalism’. On the other hand, Halliday dichotomies aboutreality and what is actually out there – the real (Muslim) world. Such a dichotomy is a critical part of the methodological debate and therefore fails to produce a distinctive third position.” (1997: 731)

    Unfortunately, Salla has not provided any new mmethodological frameworks, but suggested a pragmatic (yet analytically useless) political programme.

    The search for a middle ground thesis has never been very successful, but the events of 9/11, exacerbating the political and ideological arguments, have definitely marginalized future attempts to escape the vicious circle started by the ‘essentialists’ versus ‘contingencists’ diatribe.

    According to Fuss, essentialism is ‘an ontology which stands outside the sphere of cultural influence and historical changes’ (1989: 3).
    Essentialist positions have discussed Islam but ignored Muslims, and in particular their identities.

    Identity, I shall suggest, is an emotional commitment through which people experience their autobiographical selves. This could explain why those Muslims who do not practise, or even respect the basic rules of Islam (such as drinking alcohol) still define themselves as Muslim.

    Simply, because they feel to be Muslim! Hence, a terrorist, who feels to be Muslim, does not need to have any particular theological ideology to commit his or her actions in the name of Islam.

    As an Anthropologist, I am not interested to know if Islam is evil or not. If this is the main interest of Mr Spencer (among the other mentioned authors), as it seems from many of his books, well this is a theological diatribe.

    Islam cannot be ‘evil’ in itself because Islam without a mind interpreting it cannot exist (i.e. even Mohammed was forced to ‘read’) At least you need a mind, if not human, believers will say that it is in the mind of God.
    So, no (human or divine) mind, no Islam.
    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  41. Mr. Marranci,

    “If instead of speaking of Islam in general […] – Of course, I don’t want to speak of Islam in general, but as all Westerners, I’m still waiting to see any condemnation WHATSOEVER of militant jihad from the so called moderate Muslims. Who are they? Where are they? Besides, I would like to see Muslims appreciate and RESCPECT the unprecedented, in the history of mankind, diversity of thought in the West. Yet, to them, we’re just infidels, oppressing the poor Muslims. The generalizations that come from Muslim media and mosques are much more ignorant and hateful than anything you’ll see in the West. Muslims, after all, do not exactly attack carefully qualified target, countries or communities. They could, for instance, make a case against Europe (before they could for the US); Europe being the home of recent colonialists, ancient crusaders, and Godless communists. But no, they kill anyone, anywhere, including children in Thailand, Burma (yes!), and Indonesia. But you must know that, having studied Islam for so long. Thus, so long as Muslims don’t bend over backwards to show a diversity of thought and interpretation of Koran, I’ll be quite comfortable in making my “broad generalizations.”

    “Let me know, why, if you were a Muslim extremist, you would have found the solution of suicide-killing more effective than rhetoric.”

    The purpose of Islam, not unlike that of cancer, is to spread until
    it has covered the whole world. I trust you’ll know what the source of this statement is – or is this also a gross generalization? (I won’t – any more – get into debates with people like Dawood on this site, to whom no interpretation of Koran by an infidel (or a moderate Muslim!) is ever correct; Koran and Islam say whatever Dawood tells you it says, at a particular moment in time, in a particular context. In case you or “Dawood” think this is a hateful or incorrect statement, please don’t relay on me; take it from a real Muslim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOfU7wskFdg&feature=related )

    To continue, since the West is not very likely to buy into the rhetoric of a peaceful conversion, and Muslims are too weak today to organize an offensive like they did back in 1683, jihad – not the spiritual one, the violent one, including suicides – will be the weapon of choice. That is what I meant.

    Andre

  42. Why put my name in brackets “Andre”? And why distinguish me from a “moderate” when all I have done is make a handful of comments on the site? You know nothing about me or my thoughts other than what is here. It only shows your own paranoia regarding the Other.

  43. Hey Marancci:

    The AbdulHaqs, Ahmeds, and Mohammeds, and all the rest, they’re not REALLY your friends! :)

    You are just incredibly useful to them at helping spread the Ummah across non-muslim lands. Your talent for writing coupled with your naivete and willful denial of the supremacist, bigotted and militant nature of Islam prevent you from grasping the situation at hand. You lend “credibility” to their cause.

    They don’t really like you. They just pretend to. Ultimately, they want Islam to reign everywhere. They will deny deny deny. They’ll call me ignorant. They’ll call me racist. They’ll call me a redneck. They’ll call me xenophobic, paranoid, insane. They’ll try it all. They’ll priase you as “enlightened” and “courageous” etc etc. It will be very predictable.

    But trust me, they are not your friends. They are USING YOU. They want Islam here, and you are their tool. C’mon, have you anything more in common with them then Anti-Americanism and perhaps Capitalism?

    Snap out of it. Don’t be a tool.

  44. Dear Infidel Canuck,

    God, this is very similar to some of the comments I received from “Leftists” when I criticized the boycott of Israeli academics (see my post). There I was useful to the Zionists, and a tool in the hands of the Elders, and of course an evil conservative.

    I have a crisis of identity now. :-)

    Best wishes,

    Gabriele

  45. Gabriele wrote: “So Pipes, Lewis and Kramer and Spencer have suggested that to understand tragic events such as 9/11, March 11 and the recent 7/7 attacks we need to go back to medieval interpretations and to thinkers such as Ibn Taymiyya.

    These extreme essentialistic viewpoints have facilitated odd arguments, such as the claim that Muslims are conducting jihad because they wish to transform non-Muslims into Dhimmi.
    Although certain extremist leaders, such as Osama bin Laden, have used expressions which came from the ‘dark age’ of the Crusaders and Islamic chevaliers, it would be extremely naïve to believe that behind such Islamic retro-chic styles there could exist medieval minds.”

    Dear Gabriele,
    What is your take on the role of thinkers from Muslim Brotherhood, such as Sayed Qutb? What do you think about the role of Islamic Revolution in Iran and its legacy in modern world. I do believe that both those sources are extremely influential in modern Islamic world in their respective domains. And do you suggest that those folks do not bring rethoric from dark ages of Saladin? Am I extremely naive when I think they do or am I extremely naive when I belive that Muslim Brotherhood has significant influence (e.g. on Hamas , CAIR etc,) and Iranian mullahs have influence on Shiya community worldwide?

    What did I miss, Gabriele? What makes me extremely naive? Please, educate me while you have a chance.

    May clear thinking and common sense accompany us alwase!

    neoneo

  46. Gabrielle wrote:

    “Dear Infidel Canuck,

    God, this is very similar to some of the comments I received from “Leftists” when I criticized the boycott of Israeli academics (see my post). There I was useful to the Zionists, and a tool in the hands of the Elders, and of course an evil conservative.

    I have a crisis of identity now.

    Best wishes,

    Gabriele”

    **********
    I am surprised that you employ such flawed reasoning. You notice a pattern of argument used by some people for an entirely different subject (Israeli academic boycott), and then because you see a similar “pattern” in my argument, you assume it has the same validity, even though the subject is entirely different. Is your ability to distinguish between topics really that bad, Dr. Marancci?
    Islam does not seek to coexist as an equal with other religions/cultures/political doctrines, because it is all of those three things, as well as supremacist and intolerant. You are being used.

  47. “Islam does not seek to coexist as an equal with other religions/cultures/political doctrines”

    I’m sorry but its people like you does not seek to coexist as an equal with other religions/cultures/political doctrines,

  48. Islam does not seek to coexist as an equal with other religions/cultures/political doctrines, because it is all of those three things, as well as supremacist and intolerant.

    Your claim that Islam is supremacist and intolerant is debatable, as history proves otherwise.

  49. Rasheed,
    Islam did coexist with other religions, but never as equal.
    You may like to listen to this part of cermon of a “moderate American Muslim” Sheikh Adly who talks about relation of Islam to other religions and ideologies:

    http://www.box.net/index.php?rm=box_v2_mp3_player_shared&node=f_44234913

    In case you want to know how I got this link, here is the sourse:

    http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2007/02/islam-kafirs-and-jizyah-tax-islam-must.html

    Enjoy Sheikh Adly’s cermon!
    (soo spiritual, so uplifting and soo informative)!
    Neoneo

  50. Folks,
    here is an interesting book on the nature of fascism:

    http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385511841

    Here is short description:

    “Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

    Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.

    Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

    Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

    Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

    These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

  51. Rasheed,
    Thanks for not being a fan of sheikh Adly. I hope that while listening to his cermon you may get some idea as of why so many al-kafiroon such as myself suddenly become “islamophobic.”

    Clear public denonciation of such radical views by Muslims is far the best way to heal the world of kufar from Islamophobia. On the other hand, how well you are prepared to get into theological arguments with someone like that sheikh and prove that his views of Islam are not correct? I have been asking so oftem from my muslim opponents to prove with quran and tafsir at hands at least to me (who does not intimidate them with being an authority in Islam) , that those concept of islamic supremasism that salafi Islamists preach are wrong. Many were kind enough to try, but none seems had any real knowledge of Islamic sources to pull up support for their arguments. How would you justify for example that verses 8.39 and 9.5 and 9.29 are not valid at this time?

    neoneo

  52. that those concept of islamic supremasism that salafi Islamists preach are wrong

    F.y.i., I am a Salafî Muslim. If you believe that Adly is Salafî, then I think that you don’t have any real clue to what Salafism preaches.

  53. Oh, I almost forgot. Listening to the audio clip you posted, I found it amusing that it perfectly fit the typical (mis)representation of statements made by Muslims employed by anti-Islamic types.

    Judging by the very beginning of the clip, Adly is explaining a particular hadîth (guessing from the links on the blog you linked to, I’d say it’s from Bulugh al-Marâm’s chapter on the jizyah and truces). Clipping out the beginning of this talk removes the context in which the statements were made, which serves your purposes just nicely.

  54. Rasheed,
    what serves my purpose nicely is that Adly making astonishing effort to relate the old hadit to the modern life and explaines it as if it is relevant now.

    This is part of being salfi, right? This is in clear contradiction to Gabrieles thesis that Theology is not important.
    Or would you sugest being a salafi that that specific hadith (which is sahih) is no more relevant ?

    The fact that he reads hadit is obvious even from the clip. Suppose it were not, so what addition of context would add? The fact that it is written in hadit means that the views he expressed in his cermon with such zeal and enthusiasm are not only his own, but sanctioned by Suna. Instead of incriminating Adly only it would incriminate Islam as whole (as it does).

    From page I sent there is link to the whole cermon (which was hosted in audioislam.net or islamonline.net ???). But after the tape was surficed on the web the cermon dissapeared, which means that it is Adly who does not wish the world to listen it and see the whole context.

  55. Dear neoneo,

    I doe not say that theology is not important, it can be important for the believer, but this does not mean that there is one unified theology in Islam. My main point is that if a scholar tries to understand contemporary issues among Muslims by discussing what theologians discuss, well he becomes part of the theology of Islam and in doing so, part of the process of ‘making Islam’.

    This is not useful for a clarification what is going on today. Like here, you are engaging with Rasheed in an interesting theological debate, so that you start to debate the different interpretations, but you cannot explain to me why Rasheed, a Salafi Muslim, does not go around wishing to transform me
    in a sup of bones and burned skin while, few of my respondents during my research, who also claim to be Salafi, would have dreamt to do so.

    The only conclusion, from your theological argument is that there is only one way to me Muslim and since Islam, according to you, is a religion of evil, the only correct way to be Muslim is to be a terrorist or a fanatic. Your argument seems to suggest that the nice people who are Muslims are just, as the Marxist would say, poor alienated people full of myths and ignorant of the ‘real’ truth which Spencer&Co have revealed to the world (and before them centuries of Catholic polemics).

    You, dear neoneo, end in ‘making’ Islam. Hence, my point on why theology is useless for socio-political and anthropological analysis.

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  56. Rasheed,
    what serves my purpose nicely is that Adly making astonishing effort to relate the old hadit to the modern life and explaines it as if it is relevant now.

    An astonishing effort? Heh, your flare for the dramatic is quite amusing. If my assumption is correct, Adly is explaining a book; a book of Islamic jurisprudence. In that audio clip you provided, I didn’t once hear Adly urging Muslims to “fight and kill the infidels” or necessarily “disrepect” them, or anything of the sort. What I heard was an explanation of a particular hadîth, with the implications it had for certain situations, situations Adly clearly states in the clip do not exist today.

    Or would you sugest being a salafi that that specific hadith (which is sahih) is no more relevant ?

    Everything in Islam has relevance as Islam is a religion for all times, places, and peoples; this is what every Muslim must believe. Whether certain aspects of Islamic law are applicable for a particular situation or another is a another matter entirely.

    The fact that he reads hadit is obvious even from the clip.

    It should be, after all, he is explaining it. The text of the hadîth however has been omitted, as has the book and chapter the hadîth was quoted from; all bits of information that would aid greatly in giving Adly’s comments the proper context they should be understood in. However, in typical fashion, these things have been omitted.

    The fact that it is written in hadit means that the views he expressed in his cermon with such zeal and enthusiasm are not only his own, but sanctioned by Suna. Instead of incriminating Adly only it would incriminate Islam as whole (as it does).

    That’s hogwash. Please refer back to the link I posted earlier concerning so-called “Islamic supremacism”.

    From page I sent there is link to the whole cermon (which was hosted in audioislam.net or islamonline.net ???). But after the tape was surficed on the web the cermon dissapeared, which means that it is Adly who does not wish the world to listen it and see the whole context.

    That’s funny, one of the links I clicked on from that blog brought me to a page containing Adly’s explanation of Bulūgh al-Marâm, with the one audio I clicked on working just fine. I’m not about to listen to hours worth of audio to verify if my assumption is correct, but you’re free to do so (if you want) and see if the clip originated from one of those files.

  57. Rasheed,
    If you do not see the problem with this tape, here is a clue. Imagine a non-Muslim priest opening some obscure book and read it to his students. And the book says: “We are superior to Muslims and therefore Muslims have to be always in lower position. In states governed by our faith Muslims have to pay zull tax and they have to be humiliated. They have to be slapped in their faces, just to remind them that Islam is unclean and being Muslim is a disgrace. Slaping them for their unclean belives is a mercy to them.”

    Imagine it is happening at this time in city where you live. Imagine what you would feel and this will give you some clues how Adlys tape sounds for the earth of kufar.

    Imagine students of the priest explain it to you :’oh, but he just was commenting on the book…and he did not even advocate killing of Muslims though it was written in another part of his book” What you would feel about those students? Imagine this and it will give you idea what do I think while reading your comments.

    You wrote: That’s hogwash. Please refer back to the link I posted earlier concerning so-called “Islamic supremacism”.

    Which link?

  58. Rasheed,
    If you do not see the problem with this tape, here is a clue. Imagine a non-Muslim … Imagine this and it will give you idea what do I think while reading your comments.

    I’m sorry, but this little diatribe made me chuckle. I don’t need to imagine these sorts of statements against Islam and Muslims. I read them all the time from non-Muslims (whether they be Christian or others) demonizing and degrading Islam and Muslims. Take some of the comments made to my blog as well as to Sameer Parker’s blog, which I linked to above (see comment below), particularly those made by a person hiding behind the pseudonym “indigo218″.

    To be completely honest with you, the fact that others may view Islam and Muslims to be inferior to their religion does not bother me. If they didn’t believe their religion and beliefs were superior to others, they wouldn’t have a real reason to profess them in the first place.

    Which link?

    The first of the two links contained in comment #56 (hint: the words “supremacist” and “history” are hyperlinks). I assume from your question that you missed them both; I suggest you take a look at the two articles linked to in that post if you haven’t.

  59. Rasheed, thanks for pointing to the links which I did not notice before (one reason why I usually paste url in text). I looked at the first one and saved the second and here I post some comments focusing on problem of supremasism. I will address the question of conquest of Infidel lands and jihad in my next post to Gabriele, where I explain the difference between various salfis views on killing the kufars.

    About supremsism: One thing is to have spiritual beliefs another thing is to restructure society around you according to your believes , imposing them on others. Believing that Islam is best religion is normal for a believer. Believing that Muslims should dominate non-Muslims as Adly explained it in that short piece is what we usually associate with fascism.

    I would not have problem either with Muslims believing that their religion is superior as it does not make sense to practice one which is as good as another. The reason why I have problems with Islam is because (as you salfis believe, though other don’t) your religion is inseparable from the legal and social structure of society it dictates.

    Your claim (in post your referred )that shariya is compatible with western institution is absolutely wrong. Sharia based on Quran and Suna dictates the following:
    1.Badalla dinahu faqtuluhu (one who changes his Islamic religion kill him)
    2. Two women witnesses are equal to one male witness in court
    3. institution of dhimmitude
    4. Inhumane punishment of petty criminals
    I can continue this but you know better.

    All this is in contradiction to our most basic rights, freedom of consciousness and equality are main of those. We will never give our rights and we certainly have right to consider those who want to take from us those rights as enemies of our society.

    Now, having me saying to you that those Islamic practices (for which you stand) are in contradiction to our norms and barbaric according to our norms is merely stating the fact. But when we do so you call it “demonizing” and claiming status of victimhood. (And some people like Gabriele would even support you on that) But stating merely a fact is not the same as having Islamic countries such as Egypt, to practice humiliation of Christians, Pakistani militants do ethnical cleansing in Kashmir or having Iran practice execution of homosexuals. “Demonizing and degrading” your religion most often is merely quoting quran and hadits. Quoting suna by us is not the same as having you Rasheed to stay in line to bring you zull tax to a taxpayer who will slap you on cheek so that you fall down when you pay your money (For others: that is how dhimmi should pay zull tax according to scholars, the subject briefly addressed in adly’s tape I posted earlier) We do not do that here and no one from JW advocates anything like this.

    By demonizing you usually mean fair reporting such as here : http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
    When you see sites like that you decry “irrational fear of Islam” (without even reading them) . In spite of the fact that the site mostly is a database of terrorist acts.

    I personally believe that it is not terrorist who are the biggest enemies of Western society, it is Muslims like you Rasheed (I mean salafi Muslims) when they stay in London. If you are in Saudi Arabia I do not have any problems with you, but if you are in London or Rome, you will be always in confrontation with our basic rights and you will always attempt to assault them and destroy them. Freedom of speech is your nearest target. As one senior Italin sheikh said “thanks to your democratic institutions we will take over and thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.”

    By saying that you are an enemy I do not say that we should attack your militarily, I merely say that we can not coexist in one place without problems. I do not like to have riots and war all the time and therefore I think we should keep you as far from our society as possible. Surprisingly, some of your salfi scholars can agree with me on this. To support this they would pull up a hadit about Muslims staing with Quriash and being killed during war by Muslims. An angels asks them: “Was the land of Allah too small for you that you had to go and stay with the unbelievers?” That angel probably pointed to the only alternative for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Non-Muslims.

  60. Dear Gabriele,
    Thanks for explaining me your position in some details so that I have something to bite.

    You write: “My main point is that if a scholar tries to understand contemporary issues among Muslims by discussing what theologians discuss, well he becomes part of the theology of Islam and in doing so, part of the process of ‘making Islam’.”

    Well, I thought that making imply creating something which have not existed before. If I or Spencer offer my own interpretation, that would be making Islam. But if we quote interpretation which have been already there then what we are making? We are merely creating awareness in public that those interpretations exist. For “making Islam” you need to have authority and you need to be a Muslim sheikh. The later is the point that someone need to explain to Gordon Brown and Price Charles and Gorge Bush who are trying to tell what Islam is to Muslims. Gordon Brown thinks that he can achive something by calling terrorist criminal rather than jihadi as they call themselves as if scholars would care about opinion of Kufar.

    You write: “This is not useful for a clarification what is going on today.”
    And what is useful and how it can tell difference between violent and non-violent salafists?

    You write: “ Like here, you are engaging with Rasheed in an interesting theological debate, so that you start to debate the different interpretations, but you cannot explain to me why Rasheed, a Salafi Muslim, does not go around wishing to transform me in a sup of bones and burned skin while, few of my respondents during my research, who also claim to be Salafi, would have dreamt to do so.”

    Actually I can explain you, it is trivial. There are several views on jihad in different strains of salafi. Some believe that only Caliph can declare offensive jihad, some believe that in absence of Caliph state can declare offensive jihad, some believe that Mullah Omar is a Caliph, some believe that at this time when Muslim lands have been attacked any attack on infidels constitute defensive jihad. (I or Rsheed can supply you with abundant references on this subject) So, I do not yet know what you offer as an alternative to looking at personal ideological belief, but I think it is far easier to ask a Muslim about his views on Islamic jurisprudence (when they are educated in Islam) to understand if he will like to engage in violent jihad with infidels here and now rather than go for something else.

    Your write “The only conclusion, from your theological argument is that there is only one way to me Muslim and since Islam, according to you, is a religion of evil, the only correct way to be Muslim is to be a terrorist or a fanatic.”

    I do not see how you can derive such conclusion from what I posted. Believe me, I am aware of differences between various Islamic schools and those differences is precisely give me some clues on what to expect from various *educated* Muslims. But we never know, on the other hand, what to expect from unschooled Muslims. What views they will adopt when they learn more about Islam? Which school of thought they will like to join? Here you can come in with you psychology and anthropology tools. I think that is the only place where they can overtake simple analysis of person’s ideological and theological believes.

    Best Wishes,
    neoneo

  61. neoneo, as a word of advice: if you’re going to use Arabic terms and phrases, you should at least learn how to use them properly. The word kuffâr is plural; it’s singular is ‘kâfir’. Likewise, when you allude to Qur’anic verses and prophetic hadîths, you should at least make sure you have them correct e.g.,the hadîth you attempt to quote in Arabic is incomplete and should be “man baddala dînahu faqtalūhu.” Also the story you mention at the end of your post is way off.

    Believing that Muslims should dominate non-Muslims as Adly explained it in that short piece is what we usually associate with fascism.

    There’s that thing called “context” again. Adly in the clip you posted a link for clearly stated that the situation he’s desribing does not exist today. In my estimation, based on the topic being discussed, what he’s describing applies to a situation where Islam is the state religion and governering body; as it is that many of the Islamic injunctions pertaining to offensive jihâd, jizyah tax, implementation of legislated punishments, etc. are applicable in these situations, i.e., situations where Islam is the state authority.

    Your claim (in post your referred )that shariya is compatible with western institution is absolutely wrong. Sharia based on Quran and Suna dictates the following …

    I don’t think you fully grasp the concept of the Sharî’ah or even understand what Sameer Parker was trying to get at in his blog post. Yes, the Sharî’ah dictates that the apostate should be executed as a punishment, that certain convictions for crimes have lashing, stoning, and the cutting of limbs legislated as punishments. However, what you don’t seem to understand is that especially with regards to legislated punishments, these things are dealt with by the authorities, not by commoners. So as a common Muslim living in the West, so what if I cannot execute an apostate from Islam? I wouldn’t be the one to implement that law even in an Islamic state, that’s the government’s job. So what if I can’t chop off the thief’s right hand if he’s convicted of theft? Again, I wouldn’t be the one to implement such laws even if I lived in an Islamic state. All that is required of me, as a commoner (i.e., one who is not in a position of authority), is to believe these things to be divinely legislated, to believe that they are fair, just and correct. Surely I’m able to do that while living in the West, am I not?

    Regarding the issue pertaining to women’s testimonies, this is something that applies to business transactions as is clear from what is mentioned in the Qur’anic passage pertaining to it, as well as according to authoritative exegetes such as Ibn Kathîr who said, “[Regarding the statement] «So if there isn’t two men, then a man and two women,» certainly this is with regards to wealth, and whatever wealth is intended by” (reference). Other exegetes such as Ibn Nâsir as-Sa’dî extends this stipulation to wordly rights stating, “the testimony of two women stands in the place of a single man in wordly rights. As for religious affairs such as narration and [passing] verdicts, then surely the woman stands in the place of the man (i.e., they are of equal status). And the difference between the two matters is obvious” (reference). Previous to this statement of as-Sa’di’s, he gave some examples of wordly rights, he lists, “all [business] transactions, sales of administration, sales of debts, and everything else that belongs to them of conditions, documents and other than them.”

    How does living in the West prevent me from applying this in my daily life? If I borrow money from a friend, I need at least two just and mature male witnesses to testify to the agreement made between me and the lender. If I cannot find two just and mature males, then I can opt for one just and mature male, and two just and mature females. Surely I can implement this aspect of the Sharî’ah while living in the West, can I not?

    As for the “institution of dhimmitude”, again, I’m sorry, but that one made me laugh. You clearly don’t know what “dhimmitude” is, or when something like that is applied, or even it’s importance with respect to other aspects of the Sharî’ah.

    We will never give our rights and we certainly have right to consider those who want to take from us those rights as enemies of our society.

    Nice bit of chest beating there. I don’t want to take your precious “rights” from you, and I laugh at the mere suggestion of such; just as I laugh at those Muslims pushing for non-Muslim governments to implement “Sharî’ah law” to govern themselves by.

    Now, having me saying to you that those Islamic practices (for which you stand) are in contradiction to our norms and barbaric according to our norms is merely stating the fact. But when we do so you call it “demonizing” and claiming status of victimhood. (And some people like Gabriele would even support you on that)

    This statement of yours just shows that you don’t understand the criticisms being made against you and those like Spencer, et al.

    It’s not that you state that these aspects of Islam’s divine law are contradictory to your norms, or even that you may think them to be barbaric that we are criticizing, it’s the fact that what you present regarding these aspects of Islamic law are to be taken as the “correct” understanding for them. If this isn’t clear to you, then perhaps you need to stop and reread everything that’s been said here before you continue.

    Quoting suna by us is not the same as having you Rasheed to stay in line to bring you zull tax to a taxpayer who will slap you on cheek so that you fall down when you pay your money (For others: that is how dhimmi should pay zull tax according to scholars, the subject briefly addressed in adly’s tape I posted earlier) We do not do that here and no one from JW advocates anything like this.

    This is a perfect example of you imposing your understanding of Islam as the correct understanding.

    Btw, if I don’t pay my (non-Muslim) state imposed taxes, I get thrown in jail for tax evasion. Personally, I’d take getting slapped in the face and knocked down over spending x amount of months or years in jail any day.

    Also what’s “JW”? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Does this mean that you’re a Jehovah’s witness?

    By demonizing you usually mean unfair reporting such as here : http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
    When you see sites like that you decry “irrational fear of Islam” (without even reading them) . In spite of the fact that the site mostly is a database of terrorist acts [presented as sanctioned and encouraged by Islam].

    I made some corrections to your above quoted statement. It seems you left out some stuff; I hope you don’t mind.

    By saying that you are an enemy I do not say that we should attack your militarily, I merely say that we can not coexist in one place without problems. I do not like to have riots and war all the time and therefore I think we should keep you as far from our society as possible.

    That’s funny, for the most part, my non-Muslim neighbours don’t have many problems with me living beside them. Back when I lived with my parents, after they learned to live with my conversion, we didn’t have very many problems either.

  62. Rasheed,
    Thanks for your remarks. It is pleasure talking to you, at least I should not explain you the basics and I can rather learn from you how to pronounce Arabic words. Your response on how you would like to implement shariya here speaks for itself. If you suppose I will complement you for your non-willingness to be an executioner but rather leave it to the state, do not hold your breath. The laws you are supporting are repugnant and barbaric in any form, either when done by Islamofascist state like Iran or by Palestinian zealots.

    You write:
    It’s not that you state that these aspects of Islam’s divine law are contradictory to your norms, or even that you may think them to be barbaric that we are criticizing, it’s the fact that what you present regarding these aspects of Islamic law are to be taken as the “correct” understanding for them. If this isn’t clear to you, then perhaps you need to stop and reread everything that’s been said here before you continue.

    Look here Rasheed, it is you who need to reread what I said in response to your accusation of me making correct Islam. I told you that there is no one correct Islam and anyone knows it, do not make straw man out of me or Spencer.

    I do not care about correct Islam, I care about what different people who call themselves Muslims do and believe. I am familiar with your stream of salfism either and I hate it just as Al-Queda’s version. For me it is completely unimportant if your personally sanction or not terrorist acts described in site I mentioned. And your addition in bold is ridiculous because site editors are not bothered about one correct version of Islam (presumably yours :-) ) either. What we know is that 50% of Muslims in Islamic countries justify those acts as Islamic. It is completely immaterial for me and others if they are truly Islamic or not from your point of view. It is those numbers all what we care about.

    Regarding jiziya: If you do not pay tax here you go in jail, well this applies to everyone equally here to Muslims and non-Muslims. Zull tax applies to non-Muslims only and they get slapped when they do pay it an if they do not pay they are simply killed. Do not you know this?

    Do not laugh too much. I know too well that dhimmitude applies in Islamic states only, but is that not this what you want to do from Britan through demogarphic and political process? Do not you want Islamic state in Britan? Is not this what you want to do in the whole world. Well, Hitler’s neighbors may also did not have problem with him, but I do. So I do have problems with you and your denomination.

    One very good thing about you, though is that I do not have to talk much about “my version of Islam” as you call it, which in fact I borrowed from Jihadists :-), because your explanations about implementing shariya in kufars land just as good and speak for themselves. Thanks for explaining this and I think we are done arguing about dhimmitude, let us not go into circles.

    Would you please grace us with explaining the meaning of verses 8.39, 9.05 ,9.29. There are also interesting verse 5.51. I will then use your explanation as reference point instead of one from Spencer. I trust yours would be far more colorful.

    (Spencder is too dry and down to the earth. I like to read real Muslims or ex-Muslims as Ali Sina, those have some colors and emotions) I will replase their comments on 8.39, 9.05, 9,29, 5.51 by yours, I trust your corect version of Islam will serve my purose justa as good as Osama Bin Laden version, Spencer has been talking about, but I will get it from the first hands and this will be a honor. Trust me , I repect your opinon as autority on Islam almost as much as I would respect Ibn Baz (saudi top cleric who declared that Earth is flat and beliving oitherwise is unislamic) and take it as is however illogical it is from my own point of view.

    Thanks,
    neoneo

  63. Dear neoneo and Rasheed

    Although, as an anthropologist, I find very interesting the exchange between both of you, this is becoming a personal exchange that has nothing to do with the blog, or with the post and I think that I have provided enough space for the debate. Indeed, this is not a forum and there are more appropriate places for this discussion. I think that it is becoming very private. I will surely provide one of these days a post that can allow discussion on these points.

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

Comments are closed.