Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Yes, we are indeed discussing Spencer's interpretation of the selected verses he's read and what is the reality of Islam.

Specifically, we need to choose whether Spencer is right that ALL non-Muslims states should be attacked according to Islam, vs the practice of the Prophet, pbuh, clarified in practice and teaching.

If I could borrow a quote from 'Who's afraid of Sharia'

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

http://www.uga.edu/islam/

Cheers,
Shafique

You've just repeated your argument why YOU think Islam doesn't call for offensive Jihad warfare - and haven't addressed the point why Ibn Abi Zayd al—Qayrawani, Ibn Taymiyya, Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali, al—Mawardi, Ibn Khaldun, et al have reached a different conclusion from you.

I have indeed just repeated my simple point - you are correct.

I really don't understand why you think Spencer's interpretation of selective quotes trumps the simple fact I laid out that punks his argument?

Why should we believe Spencer's interpretations of the verses he's read, over the actual practice of the Prophet, pbuh?

When you have any new evidence or argument that addresses this simple point, let me know. I know your faith in Spencer is strong, but that's not good enough for me.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm still waiting for you to address the conclusions from Islamic scholars about the simple fact that these scholars have actually studied the Quran and concluded that Islam mandates holy war against non-believers.

I've already commented on Spencer's selective quotes and loon interpretation - his views have been punked by the simple fact that the Prophet, pbuh, taught and practiced something that contradicts the loon interpretation.

Simple question eh, why should we believe a loon interpretation rather than what the Prophet, pbuh, actually taught. Why rely on a set of quotes you copied from a loon website and ignore the historical facts?

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

http://www.uga.edu/islam/

Let me know what parts of the section on Jihad confuse you.

cheers,
Shafique

Let me know when you're ready to address the conclusions of the Muslim scholars quoted above.

I know bringing up Spencer in a thread where he was not previously mentioned must be the new favorite tactic of avoiding a debate by Muslims - never mind that his arguments regarding Jihad have never proven wrong - but hey, Muslims aren't into 'debate' and the free exchange of ideas.

They're interested in telling others what they must believe.

Simple question eh, why should we believe a loon interpretation rather than what the Prophet, pbuh, actually taught.

Fair enough, let's look at what the prophet Muhammad taught regarding offensive holy war against non-Muslims ... but on another thread.

If you think this will help you ... hey, it's your funeral.

Well, I'll wait for you to answer the question then - why should we believe Spencer's interpretation of the verses he's read and the quotes he's dug up?

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

http://www.uga.edu/islam/

Let me know what parts of the section on Jihad confuse you. (Seriously, let me know what parts confused you).

Cheers,
Shafique

Unfortunately, the quotes weren't from Spencer, they were from heavyweight classical Muslim scholars.

So, why should we not believe the Muslims scholars when they say that Islam mandates offensive holy war against non-Muslims ?

Did you look up what Jihad means in Islam and compare it with Spencer's theory?

As I said, if you are still confused with the explanations, just holler and I'll explain more simply for you. Just let me know what confuses you.

Cheers,
Shafique

As I said, I await your refutation of the conclusions of Muslim scholars, who have certainly studied the Koran.

I asked a few posts ago, why should we listen to you and not heavyweight Muslim scholars ?

Why do you think that Spencer's selective quotes and his interpretation represent the 'conclusions of Muslim scholars'?

I've pointed out that Spencer's interpretation of the verses of the Quran he's read and the selective quotes he's amassed have been punked by the simple fact that the Prophet, pbuh, acted contrary to Spencer's loon view of Islam and I've given you a link which explains what Jihad actually is. When you have compared this with Spencer's view, you can then confirm that his selective quotes and interpretation are out of line with what 'Muslim Scholars' say and what the Prophet, pbuh, did.

Spencer's selective quotes do not constitute 'heavyweight Muslim scholars' conclusions - but rather a great example of:

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

http://www.uga.edu/islam/

The offer to explain any aspect of Jihad which still confuse is still open, but first read what Muslim scholars actually say - in full and in context, rather than what JihadBob tells you they say.

Cheers,
Shafique

The school girl crush with Spencer is flattering - though he probably didn't wish a bearded, chubby Pakistani was the one obsessing over him.

If you bothered to click on the links, you would have probably realized the quotes weren't gathered by Spencer but by another author - who's written a tome on the subject of Jihad warfare, over seven hundred pages long if I remember.

Undoubtedly, your argument is ripped to shreds and all you have are meaningless talking points and empty cliches that reveal the simple fact that you CANNOT address what these quotes from Muslim scholars - and I have more - say and from men who have indeed done far more research on the subject of holy war and Islamic law than Hans Kung or any modern day revisionist could hope to accomplish.

But seriously, if you believe the quotes that are by no means snippets were taken out of context (how could one misinterpret rulings for holy war against non-believers, never mind, it's an empty talking point ?), perhaps you should present your evidence. Otherwise, you're wasting time and setting straw-men in the hopes I'll get tired with your stupidity.

The quotes are clear and complete. You have not addressed why heavyweight Islamic scholars disagree with you on the topic of holy war. Do you think they did not know about Abyssinia or was it that they didn't find your 'you have to tell law abiding citizens not to break into homes' logic unconvincing ?

Anyways, why don't you post the hadith from Muhammad to see what he actually said were the reasons for not invading Abyssinia and share your belief why the rightly guided caliphs did not follow the Prophet's advice when the invaded (and lost against) Axumite territory (who undoubtedly were peaceful to the Muslims prior to the invasion).

Look, just because Spencer tells you that his quotes represent true Islam, doesn't actually change the facts on the ground (to borrow a turn of phrase).

You have singularly failed to address a simple fact that the Prophet, pbuh, taught and demonstrated that Islam does NOT advocate Muslims attacking all non-Muslim states as a tenet of faith. Spencer's theory is punked - the injunctions allowing a just war can't be generalised, which is exactly why you insist on only looking at the elephant's trunk (your selective quotes).

I've invited you to compare the loon version of Islam with full explanations of Jihad from actual Muslim scholars (as opposed to loon bloggers and their selective quotes). I've offered to help you in the comparison of these explanations with those of Spencer.

When you have read, understood and compared- let me know.

As for the quotes coming from Spencer's chum Bostom's article (another pseudo-scholar), that point is moot -as these guys are joined at the hip when it comes to loon interpretations of Islam. Here they are having much more fun than you're having:

dubai-politics-talk/spencer-not-happy-chappy-t42943.html

And apparently Bostom has accused Spencer of fake scholarship since that photo was taken!
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/04/the-gr ... t-spencer/


Cheer up eh - it is almost Eid.

Cheers,
Shafique

(PS who is this 'Pakistani' that you are now fantasising about? )

Isn't this another shining example of how Muslims are incapable of actual debate but just preaching - you know, Muslims need to tell you what to think and you better believe it, or else !

The challenge I was referring to in the post shafique quoted in the OP was a response by a Muslim who was quoted claiming that holy war is not a concept found in Islam

I quoted five heavyweight and universally accepted classical Sunni Muslim scholars providing their rulings on the teachings of holy war (in fact, I took shafique's advice and consulted Muslims to see what Islam teaches regarding offensive holy war, Islam calls for perpetual Jihad, who knew ?), disproving the claim that a concept of holy war does not exist in Islam - if it didn't, then what are Muslim scholars doing discussing that Muslims are to wage a 'holy war' against unbelievers until they convert to Islam or live under a Muslim occupation ?

The mind boggles.

But now we've come to the all familiar Muslim tendency of switching tactics and smearing their opponents. The quotes from Muslim scholars have been provided, but instead of addressing these quotes to acknowledge that this belief of holy war (it is pretty hilarious to claim otherwise) does exist within Islam, we see Muslims who are incapable of debate.

Instead, we see a rather trollish attempt at obfuscation. First by presenting a rather winky-dink argument that Muhammad needed to tell his 'peaceful' followers not to attack a territory (apparently, if we follow this logic, upstanding citizens must be told not to pickpocket) then a refusal to quote the actual hadith to examine what reason or reasons were given why Muhammad chose one nation as an exemption from attack, to see if the loon's claims that Muhammad only allowed for holy war against nations that were 'hostile' to Islam was true. And finally, a complete look at Muhammad's utterances and actions regarding holy war. Is shafique citing an isolated example or did Muhammad peacefully co-exist with tribes without demanding subjugation or loyalty to Medina ?

The response that Muhammad needed to say 'hey, don't attack these people, they've done favors for us in the past, but it's 'ok' to attack everybody else' apparently has not sunk in that this particular example does not help one's argument that Muhammad and the early Muslims were peaceful people.

Currently, our resident loon is left to his usual trickery that the quotes are now 'taken out of context', as if the complete paragraphs these scholars are quoted in calling for war against non-believers to establish Islamic supremacy over non-Muslims couldn't be any clearer. And no, there is no way anyone but Muslim loons could claim such clear and complete quotations were taken out of context.

I couldn't see any new argument in your post eh.

Did you read, understand and compare the information about Jihad in the link I gave with Spencer's distorted view?

When you have a point you want to debate that is not in the articles, let me know.

Specifically, I'm happy to debate the point:

shafique wrote:You have singularly failed to address a simple fact that the Prophet, pbuh, taught and demonstrated that Islam does NOT advocate Muslims attacking all non-Muslim states as a tenet of faith. Spencer's theory is punked - the injunctions allowing a just war can't be generalised, which is exactly why you insist on only looking at the elephant's trunk (your selective quotes).

(Still intrigued to who is this 'Pakistani' fellow is )

And it is worth considering what my first reply said:

This is a classic example of loon reasoning - relying on selective quotes and loon interpretations.

There is indeed a concept of just war in Islam.

Jihad, the lesser jihad, does indeed signify using military means to establish order and fight injustice. The greater Jihad is self-improvement, fighting against one's own bad thoughts/intentions and purifying one's soul.

When there is a need for a just war, then there is indeed an obligation for a Muslim state to act.

So, the question becomes - does the quotes given by Bostom quoted above represent a reality (which loons say is true) that all Muslims are obligated by Islam to fight non-Muslims and get them to convert etc. If it were true, then we'd not be able to find an argument or examples that nullifies this interpretation.

We agree that there is indeed a historical example that punks the loon view of Islam. Hence why I said:

Specifically, we need to choose whether Spencer is right that ALL non-Muslims states should be attacked according to Islam, vs the practice of the Prophet, pbuh, clarified in practice and teaching.

The choice is clear, and we can see that some loons will always choose loon bloggers (and pseudoscholars) who have read bits of the Quran over actual scholars or historical facts.

Cheers,
Shafique

I took your advice and consulted Muslims to see what Islam teaches regarding offensive holy war and found out that Islam does allow for holy war against non-believers.

Now it turns out I haven't gone to the 'correct', government approved sources to learn about Islam properly, is that what you're saying ? (Of course, you've already shown that any old missionary rag is an appropriate source for learning about Christianity and Judaism.....)

I also see you still have not explained why law abiding citizens would be told not to break into homes or address what the quotation of Muhammad actually says.

Thorughout history when Islam considers itself strong enough, it proclaims offensive jihad. When it considers itself weaker as its opponent(s) it proclaims defensive jihad. The sheep and the wolf and the wolf wearing sheeps clothes.

event horizon wrote:I took your advice and consulted Muslims to see what Islam teaches regarding offensive holy war and found out that Islam does allow for holy war against non-believers.

Did you really - or are you on one of your fantasies again?

I simply asked you to read, understand and contrast the explanations of Jihad by Muslim scholars as listed in the link I gave and compare them with Spencer's interpretation of universal offensive holy wars.

I guess you had to go and invent some 'Muslims' that you 'consulted'. Was this because you chose not to read, or that when you read you realised you couldn't actually defend Spencer?

However, humour me - you seem to be implying you have followed the advice in the 'Who's afraid of Shariah' thread:

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

http://www.uga.edu/islam/

Which articles agreed with Spencer's views?

Cheers,
Shafique

Let me know which of the following classical Muslim scholars have been invented:

Ibn Abi Zayd al—Qayrawani

Ibn Taymiyya

Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali

al—Mawardi

Ibn Khaldun

Also please refer to the article written by the fictitious Muslim scholar, Sherman Jackson, posted by Berrin on this forum, where the Muslim author agreed with Robert Spencer that the majority of Muslim scholars and jurists held the view of offensive Jihad warfare - the minority who did not subscribe to mandatory offensive warfare took the position that holy war was not obligatory for the Khalifa, rather than a condemnation against the practice of offensive holy war.

I could also point out that your cult founder, Ahmed, went against the grain of accepted dogma as late in the nineteenth century by proclaiming that Jihad was permissible only in cases of religious persecution or defense.

What part of 'selective quotes' confused you eh?

As for name dropping, may I refer you to the fact that I saw your selective quotes and raised you the Prophet's , pbuh, instructions and actions. I still see no argument why we should believe Spencer's interpretations over that of the Prophet, pbuh. (Especially as Spencer hasn't actually bothered to read the whole Quran yet).

As I said, if you insist on getting your info on Islam from Sheikh Bob, based on the verses of the Quran he's decided to read, then that makes you no different from this guy:

He says his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-al ... bou,17990/

Please compare Spencer's arguments and the selective quotes you've given with what actual scholars of Islam say about Jihad (neither Spencer or his erstwhile buddy Bostom are Islamic scholars):

As I asked:

http://www.uga.edu/islam/

Which articles agreed with Spencer's views?

So we should ignore prophet 'I was ordered to fight all men, until they say 'There is no God but God'' Muhammad's clear examples and instructions in favor of your selective citation of history - which did not apply to Muhammad since he was never able to reach lands as far away as Africa with his armies???

Why not quote the hadith you must be referring to to analyze the reasons why Muhammad instructed his warriors to not invade Ethiopia???

Was it because they were peaceful or because of past interactions between Muhammad and the Ethiopians.

Further, why would someone need to tell his followers to not invade this or that peaceful kingdom?

That's like one neighbor telling his fellow law abiding neighbors to not break into the homes of the neighbors down the street.

No, we should ignore Spencer's take on Jihad which he gathered from selected verses of Quran and Hadith, and discredited orientalist interpretations.

But don't take my word for it (you never do anyway) - just compare Spencer's pronouncements on Jihad with those of actual Muslim scholars who have read the Quran.

Now, if your argument is why did the Prophet, pbuh, explicitly punk Spencer a millenia and a half ago - the answer is quite simple: He was explaining what the Quran actually teaches and not what loons want to believe.

Further, why would someone need to tell his followers to not invade this or that peaceful kingdom?

Why do Americans have a law which forbids s.ex with animals? Is it because all of you dream about s.exy goats?

Should you have another silly question, let me know. But first read what scholars who have actually read the whole Quran say about Jihad and compare it with Bob's crazee theory.

Cheers,
Shafique