(9:1-4 grace period, 4 holy months, “treaty” granted by Muh. for Pagans pilgrimate to Mecca only in that year — now be killed the whole year) — 9:29 additionally (“Fight those who believe not in Allah…”) only for Jews & Christians (for “corrupting” the Bible) to live as dhimmis (2nd class citizens under Islamic rule) paying JIZYAH (protection tax, how mafia operates) “…with willing submission and feel themselves subdued”
04:30 “No Compulsion in Religion” 2:256 (early Mecca verse as “Mr. Love & Peace™” was weak & still wore a mask to woo new converts and his preaching was sugary) — Abrogated (Naskh, 2:106, e.g. VIP Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid (b. 1962) — “canceled” through the latest dictated chapter #9 – (Medina jihadi) “Verse of the Sword” 9:5 “Kill the idolaters (so called “infidels” or unbelievers) wherever you find them.”
@jingel89 Rubbish. 2:256 is a Medinan verse as Baqarah is a Medinan surah. Most Muslim exegetes e.g. Tabari say 2:256 means the non-Muslims cannot be force converted to Islam, and this principle is always in effect and was never overridden. Some recent 'ulama reject the abrogation scheme with respect to peace-violence verses, e.g. Mahmud Shaltut, Abd al Wahhab Khallaf, Wahba Zuhayli and others - and they say the norm in Muslim - non-Muslim relation is peace.
@mawridquid don't play taqiyyah (3:28 16106 5:51) you are also against the very important person: Mahmud Shaltut, Abd al Wahhab Khallaf, Wahba Zuhayli of Saudi Arabia, who says also that is an eealy Mecca verse
@jingel89 Wahba Zuhayli is from Syria. I didn't understand the rest of your comment.
Nearly all exegeses of 3:28 and early commentaries dealing with Ahkam (laws) like that by al-Jassas explain that lying to disbelievers is a dispensation (rukhsa) only when there is fear of loss of limb or life, and clearly this isn't the case here or anywhere in the West. And even then, the better option is to tell the truth. But of course, in the liar's twisted mind, the truthful is the liar.
5:00 The generalised statement that "in Islamic theology, no non-Muslims are innocent," is problematic, as the Prophet Muhammad certainly taught for example that dhimmis are protected, and the Hanafi school teaches that their blood and properties have the same value in the political system of Islam as Muslims. If "innocence" is defined as they are not permitted to be killed, then all "ghayr muqatil" (non-combatants) are counted in hadiths and fiqh as innocents, as only combatants may be killed.
@mawridquid This is just silly! Maybe if non-muslims live under islamic political system where they are second class citizen THEN they are "innocent". More dishonesty from an islamic apologist. By the way "dhimmis" means also guilty people.
@thebaseofblach "Dhimmis" does not mean guilty people, which is a lie Robert Spencer invented. It comes from "dhimmah" which means a "contract" and "protection," not from "dhamm" (blame/guilt). Muslims themselves are referred to as being under the "dhimma" of Allah in the hadith, i.e. His protection. You will find no true scholarly evidence "dhimmi" means guilty.
How is it that "protection" and "custody" can be related to "blame" and "guilt"? Dhimmi does indeed mean "protected," "guaranteed," and "secured," but the semantic connotations of the word pertain to "indebtedness" and "liability." That's according to the online Sakhr dictionary, which is not by any stretch of the imagination an "Islamophobic" publication -- for example, it translates the word "Israel" into "a Jewish country set up on the Palestinian land."
The Arabic root-word "Z-M-M" (from which "dhimmi" issues) means "the opposite of praise," that is, to "censure," "dispraise too much," "blame," "criticize," "find fault with," "accuse," "obligate," "hold liable," "hold in bad conscience," "accuse," and "hold guilty," etc. And that's not a semantic connotation, that is the meaning, according to the Elias Modern Arabic Dictionary.
@thebaseofblach You are clearly regurgitating what islamophobes ignorant of Arabic have said. I mentioned dh-m-m does have this meaning in the root meaning amongst other meanings. But not everything derived from the root must be related to every meaning. For instance, "jubn" is cheese, yet one of its root's meaning is "cowardice," but they have no relation. Dh-m-m has many meanings in its "semantic origin." And what's meant here as all dictionaries state is "protection" and "contract."
@thebaseofblach If you are honest, quote one dictionary which states directly regarding the entry "dhimmi" that it means "guilty," not just the semantic origin of this word, as you yourself admitted that the semantic origin has multiple meanings. Both dictionaries and fiqh show "dhimmi" means protected/covenanted. Also what do you think the hadith that states that Muslims are dhimmis under Allah means? That Muslims are guilty? This is pure deception from Spencer, who is no scholar.
@thebaseofblach Btw, Sakhr dictionary says under the entry "dhimmi": "a free non-Moslem under Moslem rule, adherent of a revealed religion." And there's no mention of "guilt" or indebtedness. So instead of looking at the direct entry, Spencer has to use a etymologically related word to "prove" his lie!
@mawridquid Ok, let's say that Islam thinks of a dhimmi as an innocent free human being, then how can you explain that a manuel for of islamic law, Umdat al-Salik, that Al-Azhar certifies as conforming "to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community," in 1991 (not in the middle ages), stipulates that dhimmis must:
"Not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims", "Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them" (and other things)
@thebaseofblach Umdat al-Salik is a Shafi'i manual of law written more than half a millenium ago. So the book itself was written in the middle ages. Most of the book deals with the laws dealing with worship, not politics.
Besides, the Shafi'i law was not practiced in most Islamic caliphates, rather it was the Hanafi school which was dominant in the Abbasids, Ottomans, and Mughals. During the Omayyads, there were no schools of law yet formed.
@mawridquid Don't you think it's a problem that one of the highest authorities in sunni islam, Al-Azhar, endorses such racist doctrines? It also says that "jihad means to war against non-muslim."
I don't know how "stretchy" his etymologic definition of "dhimmi" is, but for all the dicrminatory laws against "dhimmis" and for the oppression and persecution of "dhimmis in history (read Bat Ye'or), I don't see your allegations as groundbreaking refutation of his scholarship
@thebaseofblach Bat Ye'or is not a scholar of Islam or Islamic history. She invented the term "dhimmitude" and selectively using the sources, tries to portray Islam as intrinsically suppressive of other cultures and religions. Her opinions have been refuted by real historians like Michael Sells in his chapter in "The New Crusades" (available on scribd) and Mark R Cohen.
@mawridquid As far as I am concerned Bat Ye'or relies heavily on source materiel all through the history of non-muslim in muslim societies, and in the manuels on islamic law such as Umdat al-Salik you can see where these discriminations might have their roots (e. g. see, Pact of Umar)
@thebaseofblach She relies on the correct sources, but she does not differentiate between fact and falsehood, what is historically reliable and what is not, and she only selectively presents what conforms to her preconceived opinions of the notion of "dhimmitude" and does not mention those periods and cases that do not conform. This is clear dishonesty. I recommend as an example of this, you read Micael Sell's chapter in The New Crusades, which is available in pdf on scribd.
@thebaseofblach "His scholarship"??? You honestly believe Spencer is a scholar on Islamic theology and history? He has no qualifications in the subject, no citations in the literature and no recognition from real scholars. He has been shown to be extremely weak in his Arabic, and extremely biased and selective in his presentation of Islam. Even if you don't agree with the latter point, by no stretch of the word "scholar" can he be deemed a scholar!
@mawridquid He himself has said that his arabic is "not so hot" and when you can say that he gives a selective presentation of Islam your are right to the extend that he doesn't talk about Islam as such but only about doctrins that concerns us. Can you show where he is going wrong in his main points and not just attacks on his authenticity as a scholar on religion which he is?
I see you have not answered if Al-Azhar's endorsement of fx Umdat al-Salik is problematic
@thebaseofblach There are many things in which he goes wrong, for instance blatant lies like saying "dhimmi" literally means "guilty people"; his claim that no Muslim theology allows for indefinite peace between Muslim and non-Muslim peoples, though this is the view of Mahmud Shaltut, Khallaf and many other recent 'ulama; his Islamically legitimising the acts of the al-Qaeda when most Muslim 'ulama throughout the world have condemned them etc. His bias leads to misrepresentation of the religion.
@mawridquid I think that maybe your bias leads you to misrepresent Spencer (or worse). You yourself have written that:
"All classical Islamic jurispudence teaches that when a caliph is present, Islamic rule should be extended"
Which of course means warfare against non-muslims. So apparently you and Spencer doesn't differ so much.
You mentioned that Shaltut and Khallaf have taught peaceful coexistence in modern days (in the mid 1900th century). I guess that would be in absence of the caliph?
@thebaseofblach In that same comment, I also mentioned that Shaltut didn't agree with the classical view - and his view is in both the presence & absence of a caliph. The essential difference between the classical view and Shaltut's, Khallaf's, Zuhayli's and others is that the latter believe the norm between Muslim and non-Muslim nations is peace, whereas the earlier jurists believed the norm was war that was interrupted by peace treaties or weakness to fight due to weak military/no caliph.
@mawridquid Well if that's the case it's to everybody's good, and if so I hope their legasy wins through in ours days. It bothers me though that people like Daniel Pipes and others who holds out for and encourage reformers like Mahmud Muhammad Taha who contextualized koranic passages so the medinan verses takes presence (but was executed for apostasy), does not cite these scolars. And his assertion that you cannot find a school that doesn't teach warfare and subjugation holds true.
@mawridquid I hate to be doubting for reformers but I wonder how good your past scholars could argue people like Taqi Usmani: “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
This is his opinion not Spencer's and I think if you were honest would use more time discrediting him
@thebaseofblach Clearly you have difficulty understanding the difference between Usmani and Spencer regarding the expansionist nature of jihad so I'll spell it out for you. In one word, the difference is honesty. Usmani is giving his honest opinion that he believes the classical expansionist view is correct, but he does not deny the other recent views exist amongst ulama. Spencer, otoh, pretends (i.e. lies) the other view does not exist - so Shaltut, Khallaf and co. don't exist according to him.
@mawridquid This is not the case because Spencer doesn't deny that other views of some scholars exist, if he has please quote it, but when he says that you cannot find a school that doesn't teach warfare and subjugation this is true, because in these sects and schools there are scholars and islamic manuals that teach this and no school has declared this to be null and void but continue to pumb out warmongers like Usmani, Maududi and co.
@thebaseofblach Spencer claims there are no serious reformers, and all "orthodox sects and schools" teach what he says. Moreover, he doesn't pay the slightest bit of attention to them which is why you didn't know about them, despite his claim to fame being exposing the true nature of jihad. That is dishonesty. "Schools of law" (madhhabs) in Islam do not have centralised authorities, but evolve through the voice of the 'ulama. Khallaf, Zuhayli etc. are 'ulama who belong to orthodox Sunni schools.
@thebaseofblach Mawdudi was not an 'alim (scholar), but a political ideologue. You'll find many of those in the "political Islam" movement are not 'ulama, so they have no real authority in Islam, whereas Spencer likes to think they do.
Usmani is an 'alim but his main focus is not jihad or the Islamic state, but giving legal verdicts and teaching law/hadith. His view is representative of many 'ulama but not all, like the ones mentioned. I don't know which is a majority today amongst the 'ulama.
@thebaseofblach I forgot to mention another of his blatant lies, that, "in Islam, no non-Muslims are innocent," which may have been the view of certain jurists, but certainly not the opinion of the dominant Hanafi school. In the verse of the Qur'an stating "kill not the soul God has santified," nearly all exegetes mention this refers to the Muslims and dhimmis - non-Muslims living under Muslim rule. Spencer will only mention what he feels helps his cause, and neglect what contradicts it.
@mawridquid Hear again non-muslim are "innocent" only after they live as second class people who must "feel themself subdued," koran 9:29, so your claim doesn't solve the problem (only distract non-muslim in fact). And if Spencer is so easy to refute why don't all the " islamic scholars take his open invitation to debate him in public and expose his "lies" and "distortions". But they aren't lining up ... oddly enough
@thebaseofblach Unfortunately, when a real challenger, Danios on the loonwatch/spencerwatch counter-jihadwatch blogs, offered a debate, Spencer refused on flimsy grounds. His challenge only extends to those he knows he can get the upper hand, not those who know how he operates and know the sinister flaws in his writings.
No matter how you put it, Spencer's comment that in Islamic theology "no non-Muslims are innocent" is a clear lie.
@mawridquid First of all Danios of loonwatch is a pseudonym and can hardly claim to be a scholar or even a real person. And you are wrong, he has accepted to debate (search: CAIR's Ahmed Rehab and the use of ridicule). But I guess Danios hasn't taken the challenge because that would expose himself.
I also find it very telling that a person who hides himself and his identity is one using personal attacks and character assassination (just take the pejorative name of his website "loonwatch").
@thebaseofblach Danios offered a radio debate which Spencer refused, while he has debated on radio before. His claim to have a problem with a pseudonym is a false claim as he posts from the pseudonym "Fjordman" and others. Danios mentioned he is a post-doctoral fellow at an ivy league college, so he is certainly a real person.
Hence, Spencer's exccuses are just that: excuses to wiggle out of being challenged by someone who can take him to pieces.
@mawridquid Danios tactics are clear, instead of addresing his main points about Islamic doctrines that gives rise to violence and supremacism and acknowledge this has to be addressed by muslims and non-muslims, he goes to minor issues where maybe he can win the debate so to discredit him, or guilt by association, or just smears.
Do you acknowledge that these doctrines should be addressed by muslims and non-muslims so as to save more people from beeing killed, looted, oppressed or enslaved?
@thebaseofblach Danios certainly deals with the Islamic doctrines Spencer discusses, e.g. "dhimmitude" (there's a lengthy article on this); apostasy; "The Understanding Jihad Series" which is ongoing.. You don't stop Darfur or Mumbay by lying about Muslims as Spencer does. It'll be like me claiming you could stop millions of deaths from the LRA, IRA, Chistians' killing in the current Congo conflict etc. if you reform Christian doctrine. Doctrine/theology plays a part, but so does world politics.
@mawridquid If you wish to see a more direct debate on these kind of issues then google (symposium frontpage ayloush). And as you seem to agree that warfare to expand islamic rule is mainstream in islamic theology (you mentioned some reformers, can you give any direct quotes from them so as to make their positions clear? Maybe just tafsirs on koran 9:29 and 9:5) then why expose someone who points to this and other teachings in Islam a lier or loon? Come up with your own solutions!
@thebaseofblach To see specifically some of what Shaltut said, google "Qur'an and Fighting" and the first link will be to a summary of Shaltut's book, where 9:29 is discussed. Shaltut's book has been translated by Rudolph Peters but is not available on the net. To see many quotes from recent 'ulama saying the normal relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim nations ought to be peace and not war (as the classical 'ulama said), see: allahisalmighty . blogspot . com (under "Modern Views on Jihad")
@mawridquid The article is mostly the words of Elias Abdullah and not of the scholar Shaltut. The point Elias make of 9:29 that this refers to attacking Byzantines (christians) from verse 9:12-13. This unfortunately is fasle. There is no records of Byzantines attacking before this. And the tafsirs on 9:12-13 (ibn kathir, maududi, dawat, maarif) all say that this refers to Quraysh (polytheists) that should be killed. Thus Shaltut (or Elias) fails and do not even acknowledge what he are reforming
@thebaseofblachThe Byzantines did attack first by killing the envoy of the Muslims after which the Battle of Mu'tah occurred. Byzantine aggression began in the lifetime of the Prophet, after which 9:29 was revealed. Shaltut argues that in light of 9:12-3 where war is justified against the polytheists due to their breaking treaties and "attacking first," similarly the Byzantine Christians were guilty of aggressing and hence 9:29. You can read some of Shaltut's treatise on google books preview.
@thebaseofblach Those who advocate this view do acknowledge what they are "reforming". See Wahba Zuhayli's quote in the blog article I referred to earlier. He mentions the classical view of "permanent war" was inspired by the prevailing condition of expansionist empires, and the actual Qur'anic attitude based on 8:61, 4:90 etc. is one where peace is the norm and war the exception. Rudolph Peters documents clearly the difference between the classical and recent 'ulama on jihad.
@mawridquid You're a lunatic who believes an illiterate tradesman had fragments of the old testament garbled to him by the archangel gabriel. It never fucking happened, your 'prophet' was a murderous raping pedophile lunatic who invented a 'religion' in order to justify his various depredations. Take your hateful religion and shove it.
@mawridquid It is completely irrelevant what other religions teaches, pointing fingers so as to avoid dealing with problems is yet another distraction against non-muslims (and secular muslims) and I call on you to stop pointing fingers at others while muslims and non-muslims are being oppressed by islamic supremacists and killed by jihadists.
You may be able take a middle ground on some of Spencer's views but the main points has to be acknowledged, to do ohtherwise is as holocaust denial
@thebaseofblach The reason I mentioned the Christian examples is to show that even you would agree that those have something to do with theology/doctrine and also the regional political situation. In the same way, I was explaining that the atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, is partly down to theology, but a lot to do with politics. But Spencer thinks it's all to do with belief and exaggarates/lies about those beliefs. You will not find the Muslims behind 9/11 etc to be 'ulama.
@mawridquid In this way it is people like Danios that is distracting us from helping people around the world and maybe prevent a new Dafur, a new Mumbay a new 9/11 or all the thousands of jihadist attacks that has happen only since 2001. But muslims who won't stop this either don't care, or is working for the cosmic project too establish "classic" sharia no matter how much blood have to be spilt in the process. Or maybe just to have better chance getting into a sensual paradise. It is deplorable
@mawridquid Spencer's decision not to debate while fully exposing himself (he lives under threats) with a pseudonym that uses guilt by association and smears (after acusing him of planning expulsion of muslims from Turkey writes: Looking at Spencer one might be tempted to think: this guy couldn’t be part of a Reconquista, his flabby physique suggests he would have a hard time lifting a pocket protector let alone a sword) is completely understandable and Danios declined Spencer's own invitation
@mawridquid Except there's no proof of his real identity so he can claim he is a 'post-doctoral fellow' all he likes, there's no proof. He's just a cyber-jihadist spreading lies.
@mawridquid No, he is actually an excellent scholar, and his books are brilliant. You're just another one of these slick stealth-jihad liars. Take your hateful religion and shove it.
He didn't mean that in islamic theology, muslims have the right to kill non-muslims. Yes, the dhimmis are protected, but they are protected under 2nd class status, ie to live under the rule of muslims and islamic law. Dhimmis are not allowed to hold political power over muslims. They are also not allowed to criticise Islam or the prophet Muhammad. If they do, they cease to be protected and muslims are commanded to kill them. So, sorry, you don't have to be a combatant to be killed.
He didn't mean that in islamic theology, muslims have the right to kill non-muslims. Yes, the dhimmis are protected, but they are protected under 2nd class status, ie to live under the rule of muslims and islamic law. Dhimmis are not allowed to hold political power over muslims. They are also not allowed to criticise Islam or the prophet Muhammad. If they do, they cease to be protected and muslims are commanded to kill them. So, sorry, you don't have to be a combatant to be killed.
@bochap21 Muslims are not commanded to kill them, but the state government. What I meant by combatants was with respect to Islamic expansion, and defensive war, not internal Muslim law. In the case of the latter, of course if a capital crime is committed - like adultery, murder, openly insulting the Prophet (criticism is different to insulting) - (and this applies to both Msulims and Dhimmis), the death penalty is executed. As I said, the Hanafis state, Dhimmis are equal to Muslims as citizens.
Jamie is talking over Robert every time he asks him something. I wished he had waited to let Robert to finish his comment. Take your time Jamie :-)
MrILoveYeshua 10 months ago
The religion of amputation
5:38 "(thiefs) cut off their hands"
jingel89 10 months ago
great job, Spencer and Glazov! informative, and hilarious...
t10tanner 10 months ago
Comment removed
t10tanner 10 months ago
Matthew 7: 15-18
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Keep speaking the truth against those who hide the truth about Islam Mr. Spencer
allisvanityxcept777 10 months ago
Matthew 7: 15-18
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Keep speaking the truth Mr. Spencer
allisvanityxcept777 10 months ago
(9:1-4 grace period, 4 holy months, “treaty” granted by Muh. for Pagans pilgrimate to Mecca only in that year — now be killed the whole year) — 9:29 additionally (“Fight those who believe not in Allah…”) only for Jews & Christians (for “corrupting” the Bible) to live as dhimmis (2nd class citizens under Islamic rule) paying JIZYAH (protection tax, how mafia operates) “…with willing submission and feel themselves subdued”
jingel89 10 months ago
04:30 “No Compulsion in Religion” 2:256 (early Mecca verse as “Mr. Love & Peace™” was weak & still wore a mask to woo new converts and his preaching was sugary) — Abrogated (Naskh, 2:106, e.g. VIP Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid (b. 1962) — “canceled” through the latest dictated chapter #9 – (Medina jihadi) “Verse of the Sword” 9:5 “Kill the idolaters (so called “infidels” or unbelievers) wherever you find them.”
jingel89 10 months ago
@jingel89 Rubbish. 2:256 is a Medinan verse as Baqarah is a Medinan surah. Most Muslim exegetes e.g. Tabari say 2:256 means the non-Muslims cannot be force converted to Islam, and this principle is always in effect and was never overridden. Some recent 'ulama reject the abrogation scheme with respect to peace-violence verses, e.g. Mahmud Shaltut, Abd al Wahhab Khallaf, Wahba Zuhayli and others - and they say the norm in Muslim - non-Muslim relation is peace.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid don't play taqiyyah (3:28 16106 5:51) you are also against the very important person: Mahmud Shaltut, Abd al Wahhab Khallaf, Wahba Zuhayli of Saudi Arabia, who says also that is an eealy Mecca verse
jingel89 10 months ago
@jingel89 Wahba Zuhayli is from Syria. I didn't understand the rest of your comment.
Nearly all exegeses of 3:28 and early commentaries dealing with Ahkam (laws) like that by al-Jassas explain that lying to disbelievers is a dispensation (rukhsa) only when there is fear of loss of limb or life, and clearly this isn't the case here or anywhere in the West. And even then, the better option is to tell the truth. But of course, in the liar's twisted mind, the truthful is the liar.
mawridquid 10 months ago
…Islam causes Muslims.
Muslims DO NOT cause Islam. Muslim-ology teaches little about Islam…
godofreason. com
jingel89 10 months ago
that was great ... enjoyable
everydayppl101 10 months ago
"You were a communist?"
"I got better" LOL
zambimaru 10 months ago 9
@zambimaru That was a great answer! Robert is extraordinarily sharp! I wouldn't want to take him on in a debate!
NorseCrusader 10 months ago
excellent interviewer
cunamarra 10 months ago
Robert Spencer is doing really good.
All religions are lies, not least pislam.
muslimsgotohell 10 months ago
5:00 The generalised statement that "in Islamic theology, no non-Muslims are innocent," is problematic, as the Prophet Muhammad certainly taught for example that dhimmis are protected, and the Hanafi school teaches that their blood and properties have the same value in the political system of Islam as Muslims. If "innocence" is defined as they are not permitted to be killed, then all "ghayr muqatil" (non-combatants) are counted in hadiths and fiqh as innocents, as only combatants may be killed.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid This is just silly! Maybe if non-muslims live under islamic political system where they are second class citizen THEN they are "innocent". More dishonesty from an islamic apologist. By the way "dhimmis" means also guilty people.
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach "Dhimmis" does not mean guilty people, which is a lie Robert Spencer invented. It comes from "dhimmah" which means a "contract" and "protection," not from "dhamm" (blame/guilt). Muslims themselves are referred to as being under the "dhimma" of Allah in the hadith, i.e. His protection. You will find no true scholarly evidence "dhimmi" means guilty.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid
How is it that "protection" and "custody" can be related to "blame" and "guilt"? Dhimmi does indeed mean "protected," "guaranteed," and "secured," but the semantic connotations of the word pertain to "indebtedness" and "liability." That's according to the online Sakhr dictionary, which is not by any stretch of the imagination an "Islamophobic" publication -- for example, it translates the word "Israel" into "a Jewish country set up on the Palestinian land."
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@mawridquid
The Arabic root-word "Z-M-M" (from which "dhimmi" issues) means "the opposite of praise," that is, to "censure," "dispraise too much," "blame," "criticize," "find fault with," "accuse," "obligate," "hold liable," "hold in bad conscience," "accuse," and "hold guilty," etc. And that's not a semantic connotation, that is the meaning, according to the Elias Modern Arabic Dictionary.
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach You are clearly regurgitating what islamophobes ignorant of Arabic have said. I mentioned dh-m-m does have this meaning in the root meaning amongst other meanings. But not everything derived from the root must be related to every meaning. For instance, "jubn" is cheese, yet one of its root's meaning is "cowardice," but they have no relation. Dh-m-m has many meanings in its "semantic origin." And what's meant here as all dictionaries state is "protection" and "contract."
mawridquid 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach If you are honest, quote one dictionary which states directly regarding the entry "dhimmi" that it means "guilty," not just the semantic origin of this word, as you yourself admitted that the semantic origin has multiple meanings. Both dictionaries and fiqh show "dhimmi" means protected/covenanted. Also what do you think the hadith that states that Muslims are dhimmis under Allah means? That Muslims are guilty? This is pure deception from Spencer, who is no scholar.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Btw, Sakhr dictionary says under the entry "dhimmi": "a free non-Moslem under Moslem rule, adherent of a revealed religion." And there's no mention of "guilt" or indebtedness. So instead of looking at the direct entry, Spencer has to use a etymologically related word to "prove" his lie!
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid Ok, let's say that Islam thinks of a dhimmi as an innocent free human being, then how can you explain that a manuel for of islamic law, Umdat al-Salik, that Al-Azhar certifies as conforming "to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community," in 1991 (not in the middle ages), stipulates that dhimmis must:
"Not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims", "Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them" (and other things)
How innocent!
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Umdat al-Salik is a Shafi'i manual of law written more than half a millenium ago. So the book itself was written in the middle ages. Most of the book deals with the laws dealing with worship, not politics.
Besides, the Shafi'i law was not practiced in most Islamic caliphates, rather it was the Hanafi school which was dominant in the Abbasids, Ottomans, and Mughals. During the Omayyads, there were no schools of law yet formed.
I see you refuse to address Spencer's lie.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid Don't you think it's a problem that one of the highest authorities in sunni islam, Al-Azhar, endorses such racist doctrines? It also says that "jihad means to war against non-muslim."
I don't know how "stretchy" his etymologic definition of "dhimmi" is, but for all the dicrminatory laws against "dhimmis" and for the oppression and persecution of "dhimmis in history (read Bat Ye'or), I don't see your allegations as groundbreaking refutation of his scholarship
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Bat Ye'or is not a scholar of Islam or Islamic history. She invented the term "dhimmitude" and selectively using the sources, tries to portray Islam as intrinsically suppressive of other cultures and religions. Her opinions have been refuted by real historians like Michael Sells in his chapter in "The New Crusades" (available on scribd) and Mark R Cohen.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid As far as I am concerned Bat Ye'or relies heavily on source materiel all through the history of non-muslim in muslim societies, and in the manuels on islamic law such as Umdat al-Salik you can see where these discriminations might have their roots (e. g. see, Pact of Umar)
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach She relies on the correct sources, but she does not differentiate between fact and falsehood, what is historically reliable and what is not, and she only selectively presents what conforms to her preconceived opinions of the notion of "dhimmitude" and does not mention those periods and cases that do not conform. This is clear dishonesty. I recommend as an example of this, you read Micael Sell's chapter in The New Crusades, which is available in pdf on scribd.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach "His scholarship"??? You honestly believe Spencer is a scholar on Islamic theology and history? He has no qualifications in the subject, no citations in the literature and no recognition from real scholars. He has been shown to be extremely weak in his Arabic, and extremely biased and selective in his presentation of Islam. Even if you don't agree with the latter point, by no stretch of the word "scholar" can he be deemed a scholar!
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid He himself has said that his arabic is "not so hot" and when you can say that he gives a selective presentation of Islam your are right to the extend that he doesn't talk about Islam as such but only about doctrins that concerns us. Can you show where he is going wrong in his main points and not just attacks on his authenticity as a scholar on religion which he is?
I see you have not answered if Al-Azhar's endorsement of fx Umdat al-Salik is problematic
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach There are many things in which he goes wrong, for instance blatant lies like saying "dhimmi" literally means "guilty people"; his claim that no Muslim theology allows for indefinite peace between Muslim and non-Muslim peoples, though this is the view of Mahmud Shaltut, Khallaf and many other recent 'ulama; his Islamically legitimising the acts of the al-Qaeda when most Muslim 'ulama throughout the world have condemned them etc. His bias leads to misrepresentation of the religion.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid I think that maybe your bias leads you to misrepresent Spencer (or worse). You yourself have written that:
"All classical Islamic jurispudence teaches that when a caliph is present, Islamic rule should be extended"
Which of course means warfare against non-muslims. So apparently you and Spencer doesn't differ so much.
You mentioned that Shaltut and Khallaf have taught peaceful coexistence in modern days (in the mid 1900th century). I guess that would be in absence of the caliph?
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach In that same comment, I also mentioned that Shaltut didn't agree with the classical view - and his view is in both the presence & absence of a caliph. The essential difference between the classical view and Shaltut's, Khallaf's, Zuhayli's and others is that the latter believe the norm between Muslim and non-Muslim nations is peace, whereas the earlier jurists believed the norm was war that was interrupted by peace treaties or weakness to fight due to weak military/no caliph.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid Well if that's the case it's to everybody's good, and if so I hope their legasy wins through in ours days. It bothers me though that people like Daniel Pipes and others who holds out for and encourage reformers like Mahmud Muhammad Taha who contextualized koranic passages so the medinan verses takes presence (but was executed for apostasy), does not cite these scolars. And his assertion that you cannot find a school that doesn't teach warfare and subjugation holds true.
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@mawridquid I hate to be doubting for reformers but I wonder how good your past scholars could argue people like Taqi Usmani: “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
This is his opinion not Spencer's and I think if you were honest would use more time discrediting him
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Clearly you have difficulty understanding the difference between Usmani and Spencer regarding the expansionist nature of jihad so I'll spell it out for you. In one word, the difference is honesty. Usmani is giving his honest opinion that he believes the classical expansionist view is correct, but he does not deny the other recent views exist amongst ulama. Spencer, otoh, pretends (i.e. lies) the other view does not exist - so Shaltut, Khallaf and co. don't exist according to him.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid This is not the case because Spencer doesn't deny that other views of some scholars exist, if he has please quote it, but when he says that you cannot find a school that doesn't teach warfare and subjugation this is true, because in these sects and schools there are scholars and islamic manuals that teach this and no school has declared this to be null and void but continue to pumb out warmongers like Usmani, Maududi and co.
How would you describe this other than hostility?
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Spencer claims there are no serious reformers, and all "orthodox sects and schools" teach what he says. Moreover, he doesn't pay the slightest bit of attention to them which is why you didn't know about them, despite his claim to fame being exposing the true nature of jihad. That is dishonesty. "Schools of law" (madhhabs) in Islam do not have centralised authorities, but evolve through the voice of the 'ulama. Khallaf, Zuhayli etc. are 'ulama who belong to orthodox Sunni schools.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Mawdudi was not an 'alim (scholar), but a political ideologue. You'll find many of those in the "political Islam" movement are not 'ulama, so they have no real authority in Islam, whereas Spencer likes to think they do.
Usmani is an 'alim but his main focus is not jihad or the Islamic state, but giving legal verdicts and teaching law/hadith. His view is representative of many 'ulama but not all, like the ones mentioned. I don't know which is a majority today amongst the 'ulama.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach I forgot to mention another of his blatant lies, that, "in Islam, no non-Muslims are innocent," which may have been the view of certain jurists, but certainly not the opinion of the dominant Hanafi school. In the verse of the Qur'an stating "kill not the soul God has santified," nearly all exegetes mention this refers to the Muslims and dhimmis - non-Muslims living under Muslim rule. Spencer will only mention what he feels helps his cause, and neglect what contradicts it.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid Hear again non-muslim are "innocent" only after they live as second class people who must "feel themself subdued," koran 9:29, so your claim doesn't solve the problem (only distract non-muslim in fact). And if Spencer is so easy to refute why don't all the " islamic scholars take his open invitation to debate him in public and expose his "lies" and "distortions". But they aren't lining up ... oddly enough
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Unfortunately, when a real challenger, Danios on the loonwatch/spencerwatch counter-jihadwatch blogs, offered a debate, Spencer refused on flimsy grounds. His challenge only extends to those he knows he can get the upper hand, not those who know how he operates and know the sinister flaws in his writings.
No matter how you put it, Spencer's comment that in Islamic theology "no non-Muslims are innocent" is a clear lie.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid First of all Danios of loonwatch is a pseudonym and can hardly claim to be a scholar or even a real person. And you are wrong, he has accepted to debate (search: CAIR's Ahmed Rehab and the use of ridicule). But I guess Danios hasn't taken the challenge because that would expose himself.
I also find it very telling that a person who hides himself and his identity is one using personal attacks and character assassination (just take the pejorative name of his website "loonwatch").
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Danios offered a radio debate which Spencer refused, while he has debated on radio before. His claim to have a problem with a pseudonym is a false claim as he posts from the pseudonym "Fjordman" and others. Danios mentioned he is a post-doctoral fellow at an ivy league college, so he is certainly a real person.
Hence, Spencer's exccuses are just that: excuses to wiggle out of being challenged by someone who can take him to pieces.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid Danios tactics are clear, instead of addresing his main points about Islamic doctrines that gives rise to violence and supremacism and acknowledge this has to be addressed by muslims and non-muslims, he goes to minor issues where maybe he can win the debate so to discredit him, or guilt by association, or just smears.
Do you acknowledge that these doctrines should be addressed by muslims and non-muslims so as to save more people from beeing killed, looted, oppressed or enslaved?
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Danios certainly deals with the Islamic doctrines Spencer discusses, e.g. "dhimmitude" (there's a lengthy article on this); apostasy; "The Understanding Jihad Series" which is ongoing.. You don't stop Darfur or Mumbay by lying about Muslims as Spencer does. It'll be like me claiming you could stop millions of deaths from the LRA, IRA, Chistians' killing in the current Congo conflict etc. if you reform Christian doctrine. Doctrine/theology plays a part, but so does world politics.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid If you wish to see a more direct debate on these kind of issues then google (symposium frontpage ayloush). And as you seem to agree that warfare to expand islamic rule is mainstream in islamic theology (you mentioned some reformers, can you give any direct quotes from them so as to make their positions clear? Maybe just tafsirs on koran 9:29 and 9:5) then why expose someone who points to this and other teachings in Islam a lier or loon? Come up with your own solutions!
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach To see specifically some of what Shaltut said, google "Qur'an and Fighting" and the first link will be to a summary of Shaltut's book, where 9:29 is discussed. Shaltut's book has been translated by Rudolph Peters but is not available on the net. To see many quotes from recent 'ulama saying the normal relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim nations ought to be peace and not war (as the classical 'ulama said), see: allahisalmighty . blogspot . com (under "Modern Views on Jihad")
mawridquid 10 months ago
Comment removed
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@mawridquid The article is mostly the words of Elias Abdullah and not of the scholar Shaltut. The point Elias make of 9:29 that this refers to attacking Byzantines (christians) from verse 9:12-13. This unfortunately is fasle. There is no records of Byzantines attacking before this. And the tafsirs on 9:12-13 (ibn kathir, maududi, dawat, maarif) all say that this refers to Quraysh (polytheists) that should be killed. Thus Shaltut (or Elias) fails and do not even acknowledge what he are reforming
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblachThe Byzantines did attack first by killing the envoy of the Muslims after which the Battle of Mu'tah occurred. Byzantine aggression began in the lifetime of the Prophet, after which 9:29 was revealed. Shaltut argues that in light of 9:12-3 where war is justified against the polytheists due to their breaking treaties and "attacking first," similarly the Byzantine Christians were guilty of aggressing and hence 9:29. You can read some of Shaltut's treatise on google books preview.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid Only if you believe in the false sping that the Muslim texts put on the story.
MojaveViper29 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Those who advocate this view do acknowledge what they are "reforming". See Wahba Zuhayli's quote in the blog article I referred to earlier. He mentions the classical view of "permanent war" was inspired by the prevailing condition of expansionist empires, and the actual Qur'anic attitude based on 8:61, 4:90 etc. is one where peace is the norm and war the exception. Rudolph Peters documents clearly the difference between the classical and recent 'ulama on jihad.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid You're a lunatic who believes an illiterate tradesman had fragments of the old testament garbled to him by the archangel gabriel. It never fucking happened, your 'prophet' was a murderous raping pedophile lunatic who invented a 'religion' in order to justify his various depredations. Take your hateful religion and shove it.
CMTours732 10 months ago
@mawridquid It is completely irrelevant what other religions teaches, pointing fingers so as to avoid dealing with problems is yet another distraction against non-muslims (and secular muslims) and I call on you to stop pointing fingers at others while muslims and non-muslims are being oppressed by islamic supremacists and killed by jihadists.
You may be able take a middle ground on some of Spencer's views but the main points has to be acknowledged, to do ohtherwise is as holocaust denial
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach The reason I mentioned the Christian examples is to show that even you would agree that those have something to do with theology/doctrine and also the regional political situation. In the same way, I was explaining that the atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, is partly down to theology, but a lot to do with politics. But Spencer thinks it's all to do with belief and exaggarates/lies about those beliefs. You will not find the Muslims behind 9/11 etc to be 'ulama.
mawridquid 10 months ago
@mawridquid In this way it is people like Danios that is distracting us from helping people around the world and maybe prevent a new Dafur, a new Mumbay a new 9/11 or all the thousands of jihadist attacks that has happen only since 2001. But muslims who won't stop this either don't care, or is working for the cosmic project too establish "classic" sharia no matter how much blood have to be spilt in the process. Or maybe just to have better chance getting into a sensual paradise. It is deplorable
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@mawridquid Spencer's decision not to debate while fully exposing himself (he lives under threats) with a pseudonym that uses guilt by association and smears (after acusing him of planning expulsion of muslims from Turkey writes: Looking at Spencer one might be tempted to think: this guy couldn’t be part of a Reconquista, his flabby physique suggests he would have a hard time lifting a pocket protector let alone a sword) is completely understandable and Danios declined Spencer's own invitation
thebaseofblach 10 months ago
@mawridquid Except there's no proof of his real identity so he can claim he is a 'post-doctoral fellow' all he likes, there's no proof. He's just a cyber-jihadist spreading lies.
CMTours732 10 months ago
@mawridquid No, he is actually an excellent scholar, and his books are brilliant. You're just another one of these slick stealth-jihad liars. Take your hateful religion and shove it.
CMTours732 10 months ago
@thebaseofblach Don't bother, this guys a liar.
CMTours732 10 months ago
@mawridquid
He didn't mean that in islamic theology, muslims have the right to kill non-muslims. Yes, the dhimmis are protected, but they are protected under 2nd class status, ie to live under the rule of muslims and islamic law. Dhimmis are not allowed to hold political power over muslims. They are also not allowed to criticise Islam or the prophet Muhammad. If they do, they cease to be protected and muslims are commanded to kill them. So, sorry, you don't have to be a combatant to be killed.
bochap21 10 months ago
@mawridquid
He didn't mean that in islamic theology, muslims have the right to kill non-muslims. Yes, the dhimmis are protected, but they are protected under 2nd class status, ie to live under the rule of muslims and islamic law. Dhimmis are not allowed to hold political power over muslims. They are also not allowed to criticise Islam or the prophet Muhammad. If they do, they cease to be protected and muslims are commanded to kill them. So, sorry, you don't have to be a combatant to be killed.
bochap21 10 months ago
@bochap21 Muslims are not commanded to kill them, but the state government. What I meant by combatants was with respect to Islamic expansion, and defensive war, not internal Muslim law. In the case of the latter, of course if a capital crime is committed - like adultery, murder, openly insulting the Prophet (criticism is different to insulting) - (and this applies to both Msulims and Dhimmis), the death penalty is executed. As I said, the Hanafis state, Dhimmis are equal to Muslims as citizens.
mawridquid 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mawridquid
"openly insulting the Prophet"
That is not a crime. That's the problem with islam. Only in Islam, would you have capital punishment for that.
"Hanafis state, Dhimmis are equal to Muslims as citizens"
Equal? Please, its like animal farm. Muslims are more equal than Dhimmis.
bochap21 7 months ago
We need more ppl in this world like him
vin1933 10 months ago
- - Get up an do something! - -
TheUnknownVisiter 10 months ago
This is great !
I love Robert Spencer.
VonStierlitz 10 months ago 11
@VonStierlitz
Wanted to write the same ;o) ... he is lovely! And Jamie has a deep message too.
Thanks them both.
TheUnknownVisiter 10 months ago