Jihad Watch: Why can't Muslims debate?

December 19, 2007

Why can't Muslims debate?

The Council on American Islamic Relations says that its mission is "to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue," and "build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding." The UK "Islam Is Peace" campaign says it wants "to create dialogue."

And over the years I have participated in many discussions and debates with Muslim spokesmen, including, among others, Salam Al-Marayati of MPAC, Hussam Ayloush of CAIR, Hussein Ibish, then of the ADC, As'ad AbuKhalil, who calls himself the "Angry Arab," Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, and, years ago on MSNBC, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper. I was once even on a BBC panel with the jihadist Sheikh Omar Bakri. Bakri differed markedly from those and others "moderate" Muslim spokesmen in that he actually made arguments for his positions, and did not content himself simply with making personal attacks and heaping abuse upon his opponent. Insults are not arguments, but all too many Muslim spokesmen in America today seem not to be able to distinguish the two. You can see Ayloush and AbuKhalil slinging mud lustily and avoiding substantive issues in earnest here.

Meanwhile, others whom one might expect would debate in a more civil and rational fashion refuse to debate at all. Akbar Ahmed of American University was allowed to comment on my interview with C-Span's Brian Lamb in 2006 before that interview even aired. In the course of doing so, he said: "I know the work of Dr. Spencer and I know a lot of these arguments because I’ve been a scholar of Islam for the last several decades. So, I’m very aware with all my friends and colleagues. And we interact with them. We debate. We discuss." But he ignored my invitations to debate or dialogue (with the exception of one noncommittal email saying he was looking forward to "talking soon"), and responded to my statements on C-Span with evasions and irrelevancies. Others who have attacked my work but declined to discuss it or debate me include Ahmed Afzaal, Omid Safi, Jamal Badawi, and non-Muslim academic propagandist Carl Ernst.

This is not to say no one has been willing to discuss these matters with me. Ali Eteraz was willing, but he proved not a little disingenuous. And so it remains true that Islamic spokesmen, while denigrating and dismissing my work, have never actually refuted it.

I know, I know: ربما كان السكوت جواباً -- rubbama kana as-sukootu jawaaban. That is, "silence is sometimes an answer." Indeed it is, and it speaks loud and clear, and it says that they cannot refute what I say about jihad and Islamic supremacism. So all they can do is cry "Islamophobe!" and try to turn people of good will away from the realities I am reporting about. And this is a much larger issue than simply who will or will not debate me, because it highlights the fact that peaceful Muslims have never formulated an Islamic response to the jihadists' claim to represent pure and true Islam -- and as long as they do not and apparently cannot do so, the jihadists will continue to hold the intellectual initiative within Islamic communities worldwide. "Moderate" Muslim spokesmen such as those above have not just not answered me; they've done nothing to seize that intellectual initiative and blunt the force of jihadist recruitment among Muslims.

Anyway, I am telling you all this because of Nadir Ahmed, an Islamic apologist who runs the website examinethetruth.com. Take a look around that site, and you will see that he is no more interested than Ayloush or AbuKhalil in reasoned, respectful debate; instead, he constantly demeans his opponents in the most juvenile terms, and no matter what the outcome of his debates, claims victory and thumps his chest like a witless teenager. He and a group of his friends and associates have been clogging my inbox for quite some time, pointing to what I said here, that "I would, of course, be happy to debate any scholar about Islam and jihad; this is a standing invitation," and claiming that I had run away from Nadir Ahmed's debate challenge. Of course, it isn't worth debating Nadir Ahmed, because he has abundantly demonstrated already that he has no idea what a genuine debate even is, but is only interested in racking up pelts in his imaginary game of Great Islamic Hunter. But because I have engaged in discussions with other mean-spirited characters with no interest in fair-minded exchange, such as Dean Esmay, in the interest of illuminating points in ways that might benefit people of good will, and because Ahmed has debated at least one person I respect highly -- Sam Shamoun -- I offered to debate Ahmed in print. At that point he fled -- doubtless because it isn't as easy in print to traffic in emotionalism, grandstanding, and unsubstantiated assertions as it is in person.

But recently he turned up again, in emails cc'ing Ayloush and Ahmed Bedier of CAIR, along with AbuKhalil and others, including some apparent dhimmis in New Zealand, and saying he would take up the challenge. Against my better judgment, I agreed to debate this point: "The schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the hadith, and the Qur'an teach that Muslims must make war against the People of the Book and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law." I agreed not because I thought Ahmed would deal fairly, but because here again I thought our exchange might be illuminating for people of good will. And indeed, I think it will be, albeit not perhaps in the way I expected. Ahmed crowed over his victory in advance, writing me this on Monday: "I will submit my opening statements to you latest Wednesday. However I am afraid that my opening shots are going to sink the ship - I am afraid that the opening is going to be devastating that you will abandon the debate right there and then." However, what he delivered was somewhat less than overwhelming -- in fact, it's just more of the same from all too many Islamic spokesmen, insults instead of arguments:

Alhumdulilah(Praise be to God)... the Lord has delivered you to me... Robert Spencer. You can always run... but you can’t hide forever. And Robert, make sure you bring your girlfriend Pam to this debate... she is going to be important, because you're going to need to her to nurse you back to health after I get done with you.
Let me start off by saying that these print debates are stupid. The only reason why I am agreeing to this type of exchange is because Robert Spencer requires it before he can find the courage to face the public challenge to debate with ExamineTheTruth.com and Islamlife.com. So if this is the only way for him to come out of his spider hole, so that we can CRUSH his LIES and DECEPTION, then fine let's get it over with.

Today we will be confronting Robert Spencer's great hoax, in which he has spooked countless number of ignorant Americans and Westerners:

Islam must make war against the People of the Book(Jews, Christians) and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law…

By God's grace, we will bust up this racket. Now you might be thinking that I am avoiding the topic, "Terrorism and Islam", but this is not true. Rather we have been actively debating it and hunting down those liars who have made this claim. And Allah-hu-Akbar, not a single person has been able to show any evidence for this claim. Don’t forget to see our latest debate on video against MinistryToMuslims.com:

Debate: Is Islam a religion of peace?

But rather... the Quran actually did speak about the issue of terrorism and clearly condemned it. The Quran made it clear... under no circumstances can innocent civilians nor non-combatants be targeted in warfare.

When I and Ahmed Bedier challenge Robert Spencer on Islam and terrorism last year, behold! just have a look what choked out of his gullet - out of fear of being exposed in debate, Spencer nervously said I agree with the anti-Islamic Dr. Ergun Caner's statement.

And that is the deception of Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.org. They had full knowledge the Quran and the Sunnah addressed the issue of terrorism and clearly condemned it, yet... they withheld this information from the public. Keep in mind Robert Spencer never actually explicitly stated that Islam teaches terrorism, but rather... he *mislead* his audience into thinking that it did!

ExamineTheTruth.com has issued the following indictment against Robert Spencer and Jihadwatch.org:

1. Robert Spencer knowingly withheld important information from his blind followers - Islam condemns terrorism. (He did make a reference to this in one of his books on page 23423434324234 :) )
2. Neither would he correct those who promoted this false view, but rather, he provided material support to those liars...and aided and abided them to help promote a view which he knew to be false.
3. Robert Spencer knowingly, made statements that would mislead a person into thinking that Islam permits the killing of innocent civilians - terrorism. Therefore, Spencer's scam was not to come out and explicitly state this(because he would get caught), but rather he mislead people into believing this false view.

So why is terrorism important for this debate? Because that is why military Jihad was declared against the Christians. Islam does not teach to declare war on nations just because they are "infidels". But rather, Islamic Jihad came to confront and condemn the genocide and terrorism of Biblical Christianity, and to save the world from the genocide of Jesus Christ.

(Islam believes in Jesus Christ, but not the false Christ which has been erected in the Bible).

Once one clears away the insults and attacks on my character and good will, there is dispiritingly little to deal with here, raising once again the question -- why can't, or won't, Muslims debate? Why must exchanges with Muslim spokesmen so often be of this kind? Of course, Nadir Ahmed is the bottom of the barrel, but he appears to be close to CAIR's Ahmed Bedier -- is this what CAIR takes for genuine debate? And Salam Al-Marayati of MPAC, a much more respected and respectable individual, has hardly behaved differently in his exchanges with me. I am beginning to suspect that all the abuse they delight in is not just a manifestation of their abysmal intellectual bankruptcy, although it is that also; it is at the same time a demonstration of their Islamic supremacist assumptions. The filthy kaffir is not to be respected, much less his arguments answered; rather, he is to be rebuked for his insolence and put in his place.

Anyway, in response to the substantive points Ahmed makes, such as they are:

Today we will be confronting Robert Spencer's great hoax, in which he has spooked countless number of ignorant Americans and Westerners: Islam must make war against the People of the Book(Jews, Christians) and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law…[...] And Allah-hu-Akbar, not a single person has been able to show any evidence for this claim.

Here's some:

Islamic law calls for the subjugation of Jews, Christians, and others deemed “People of the Book” under the rule of Islam. This idea is based on a cluster of Qur’anic verses that contain general and open-ended commands to fight unbelievers. Among the Qur’an’s commands to fight unbelievers are these:

“O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (9:123).

“O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (9:73). The Arabic word translated here as “strive hard” is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad.

The command applies first to fighting those who worship other gods besides Allah: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (9:5).

However, Muslims must fight Jews and Christians as well, although the Qur’an recognizes that as “People of the Book” they have received genuine revelations from Allah: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [the special tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

That verse is the one place where Muslims are directed explicitly to make war against and subjugate Jews and Christians – the “People of the Book,” who according to traditional Islamic theology once subjugated enter the dhimma, the protection of the Muslims, and become dhimmis, protected (or guilty) people. The noted Qur’an commentator Ibn Juzayy says that Qur’an 9:29 is “a command to fight the People of the Book.” Another respected mainstream Qur’an commentary, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that when 9:29 says that Muslims must fight against those who “follow not the Religion of Truth,” it means those who do not follow Islam, “which is firm and abrogates other deens [religions].”

Qur’an 9:29 also mandates that Jews and Christians pay the jizya, the poll tax. The classical Islamic scholar As-Sawi specifies that the payment of the jizya signifies that the non-Muslims are “humble and obedient to the judgements of Islam.” The verse also specifies that the non-Muslims “feel themselves subdued,” or assume a “state of abasement.” The Bedouin commander al-Mughira bin Sa’d spelled this out when he met the Persian Rustam. Said al-Mughira: “I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement.”

Rustam replied, “I know what jizya means, but what does ‘a state of abasement’ mean?”

Al-Mughira explained: “You pay it while you are standing and I am sitting and the whip hanging is over your head.”

Similarly, the renowned Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir (1301-1372), whose writings are still influential today, says that the dhimmis must be “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.” The seventh-century jurist Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab stated: “I prefer that the people of the dhimma become tired by paying the jizya since He says, ‘until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement.’” As-Suyuti elaborates that this verse “is used as a proof by those who say that it is taken in a humiliating way, and so the taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin.” He adds, however, that “this is rejected according to an-Nawawi who said, ‘This manner is invalid.’” Zamakhshari, however, agreed that the jizya should be collected “with belittlement and humiliation.”

As-Sawi specifies that the payment of the jizya signifies that the non-Muslims are “humble and obedient to the judgements of Islam.” As-Suyuti notes that the jizya is “not taken from someone in a state of hardship,” although that was a stipulation at times honored in the breach. For example, a contemporary account of the Muslims’ conquest of Nikiou, an Egyptian town, in the 640’s, says that “it is impossible to describe the lamentable position of the inhabitants of this town, who came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month…”

All this is in accord with Muhammad’s command to Muslims invite non-Muslims to Islam and then go to war with them if they refused both conversion and second-class dhimmi status: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war.…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [a special tax on non-Muslims; cf. Qur’an 9:29]. 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.” (Sahih Muslim 4294)

All four principal Sunni schools agree on the importance of jihad warfare against non-Muslims. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: "Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists: "Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”

The Hanafi school sounds the same notes: "It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do" (Hedaya).

And so does the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058), who echoes Muhammad’s instructions to invite the unbelievers to accept Islam or fight them if they refuse: "The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…"

These are all extremely old authorities – such that one might reasonably assume that whatever they say couldn’t possibly still be the consensus of the Islamic mainstream. The laws of the United States have evolved considerably since the adoption of the Constitution, which itself has been amended. So why shouldn’t this be true of Islamic law as well? Many observers assume that it must be, and that Al-Qaeda’s departure from mainstream Islam must be located in its preference for the writings of ancient jurists rather than modern ones. But in this, unfortunately, they fail to reckon with the implications of the closing of the gates of ijtihad.

Ijtihad is the process of arriving at a decision on a point of Islamic law through study of the Qur’an and Sunnah. The founders of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence are among the small number of scholars -- mujtahedin -- thus qualified to perform ijithad. But they all lived very long ago; for many centuries, independent study of the Qur’an and Sunnah has been discouraged among Muslims, who are instead expected to adhere to the rulings of one of those established schools. Islamic scholar Cyril Glasse notes that “‘the door of ijtihad is closed’ as of some nine hundred years, and since then the tendency of jurisprudence (fiqh) has been to produce only commentaries upon commentaries and marginalia.”

This means that the doctrines of jihad enunciated by those ancient jurists remain unchanged. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, in a 1994 book on Islamic law quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.”

Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

But if this is so, why hasn’t the worldwide Islamic community been waging jihad on a large scale up until relatively recently? Nyazee says it is only because they have not been able to do so: “the Muslim community may be considered to be passing through a period of truce. In its present state of weakness, there is nothing much it can do about it.”

That is the weakness that contemporary jihadists are striving to correct. In a recent Friday sermon preached in Islam’s holiest city, Mecca, Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi said this about Jews and Christians in Muslim lands:

If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet — there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are . . . that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes . . . that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim ...If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.

Back to Nadir Ahmed:

But rather... the Quran actually did speak about the issue of terrorism and clearly condemned it. The Quran made it clear... under no circumstances can innocent civilians nor non-combatants be targeted in warfare.

Great. At this point Ahmed's post links to his discussion of Qur'an 4:91 -- actually 4:90 -- which says: "Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."

This verse is sometimes adduced as proof that Muslims have no open-ended mandate to fight unbelievers, but the Tafsir al-Jalalayn makes clear that this refers only to unbelievers who submit to Islamic rule: “And so if they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, reconciliation, that is, [if] they submit, then God does not allow you any way against them, [He does not allow you] a means to take them captive or to slay them.” Does Ahmed reject this interpretation? Good. But many Muslims don't, and its very existence shows that 4:90 alone has never been understood among Muslims as refuting or rejecting Islamic supremacism.

And as for attacks on innocent civilians, I have pointed out many, many times before that it is not enough to say that the Qur'an forbids killing innocent civilians. Some jihadists, like Anjem Chaudary, maintain that no non-Muslim is innocent. Does Nadir Ahmed believe that non-Muslims such as the office workers in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 can be "innocent civilians"? He doesn't say. Why not? The vagueness on this point, whether coming from CAIR and the Fiqh Council of North America or from this fellow, enables people like Anjem Chaudary to continue their jihad unchallenged -- for they don't believe, after all, that they are targeting innocent civilians. This is a condemnation of terrorism, in other words, that makes non-Muslims happy but does nothing actually to stop terrorism.

When I and Ahmed Bedier challenge Robert Spencer on Islam and terrorism last year, behold! just have a look what choked out of his gullet - out of fear of being exposed in debate, Spencer nervously said I agree with the anti-Islamic Dr. Ergun Caner's statement.

In reality, I asked CAIR's Bedier a series of questions about the interpretation of the Qur'an and Islamic supremacism, after he left an abusive hate message at this site. Of course, he never answered. I don't expect him to answer at this point, but I do wish he would make clear the relationship between CAIR and Nadir Ahmed. Does CAIR endorse the work of this childish smear artist? I find the connection extremely illuminating.

1. Robert Spencer knowingly withheld important information from his blind followers - Islam condemns terrorism. (He did make a reference to this in one of his books on page 23423434324234 :) )

In reality, I've discussed the condemnations of terrorism coming from Islamic groups here a number of times, most recently several weeks ago.

2. Neither would he correct those who promoted this false view, but rather, he provided material support to those liars...and aided and abided them to help promote a view which he knew to be false.

I have never promoted a view that I know to be false. I scrupulously document every assertion I make about Islamic texts and teachings in my books and articles. This point is simply libelous.

3. Robert Spencer knowingly, made statements that would mislead a person into thinking that Islam permits the killing of innocent civilians - terrorism. Therefore, Spencer's scam was not to come out and explicitly state this(because he would get caught), but rather he mislead people into believing this false view.

Actually, it was Muslims like Anjem Chaudary, linked above, who have made such statements. Muslims like Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress, who said a few years ago that all adult Israelis are targets. Muslims like Abu Shanab of Hamas, who, among many others, has said that there are no civilians in Israel. But Nadir Ahmed, along with many other more reputable Muslim spokesman, would prefer to pretend that it is I who make up such things. And they have nothing to say to Muslims who hold such views. Now, why is that?

Anyway, I am through with Nadir Ahmed. He will crow that he won our "debate," but he would have done that no matter what happened anyway. I apologize for the length and tedium of this post, but I believe it encapsulates an important point: no one, Muslim or non-Muslim, has ever yet refuted the contention that Islam teaches warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. And so one thing is certain: that warfare will continue.

Posted by Robert at December 19, 2007 4:39 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

Robert: Your debating "buddy" states: "You can always run... but you can’t hide forever." I fail to understand how your continual invitation to debate constitutes running and hiding.

He further states, "Islamic Jihad came to confront and condemn the genocide and terrorism of Biblical Christianity, and to save the world from the genocide of Jesus Christ." If Jesus died for our sins, in our place, please explain to me how he is guilty of genocide. The same goes for Biblical Christianity. If it is indeed Biblical, then it will follow the example of Jesus Christ. This means that the Christian is to forgive and to show mercy to their enemies. How can that possibly be interpreted to be genocide?

The only one guilty of genocide is the Islamic Jihad. They kill, kill, kill, with the cry "allahu akbar" on their lips. They hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, killing all on board and 3000 people inside of the building.

This guy is clueless, because he is worshiping a demon called "Allah" who has blinded his eyes.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook

at December 19, 2007 5:14 PM

The Nadir Ahmed's of the world should not waste their breath critizing or debating Spencer and 'his followers' while at the same time the elephant just keeps poo'ing a big pile in the room. Everyday.

Posted by: sounder

at December 19, 2007 5:28 PM

2 Thessalonians
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The key here is “pleasure in unrighteousness”.
That is what Islam is all about.
Even thou they say they are righteous; the one they follow( MO) is a liar and a thief.
They enjoy “booty”, sex with unwilling captives; murdering “civilians”…yes, the list is long.
So NO WAY will you ever get them to debate.
Debate what? Their pleasures? Their prophet? Their god? Never!
That would expose way too much.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA

at December 19, 2007 5:34 PM

I think the term "blowhard" is appropriate: the bully that spouts off about what he will do to you in the schoolyard brawl, but never does it in the hope of scaring you to step back, thus preserving his reputation. Truly sad, and totally opposite to Mr. Spencer's line-by-line debating style, full of meat, not hot air.

Maybe we should all send this somewhat deluded individual emails asking him to actually answer the questions and refute the current arguments. Wasn't there a movie where the hero says "I would give real money if this guy would just shut up"?

Bloviation pure and simple. One of the reasons that I love this website is that between Spencer and Fitzgerald, I don't just learn about current events, I also get to expand my vocabulary. Keep firing, gentlemen.

Posted by: OolongChung

at December 19, 2007 5:47 PM

"I am beginning to suspect that all the abuse they delight in is not just a manifestation of their abysmal intellectual bankruptcy, although it is that also; it is at the same time a demonstration of their Islamic supremacist assumptions. The filthy kaffir is not to be respected, much less his arguments answered; rather, he is to be rebuked for his insolence and put in his place."

This would correspond with one of the options given to the unbeliever -- that he feel subdued. That's exactly why they won't answer you, because you're just a filthy kaffir.

And that's exactly why they hate Jewish Israel, because the "dirty" Jew is at least equal to them in society, if not above them. They can't stand the thought of that. It has absolutely nothing to do with property rights, the "occupation", or any other lie the muslims tell the world as their reason for hating Jewish Israel.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook

at December 19, 2007 5:50 PM

The reasons they cant debate is because they cant think.

(it's because of the cant they are taught)

islamania.

Posted by: dgene

at December 19, 2007 6:02 PM

Muslims can't debate for the simple reason that they're requested to leave logic behind and have unconditional faith. This is a very different point of view from Christianity, which embraced Hellenic thinking and considers logic to be a gift from God to be used.

Let me quote the Quran for this. Sura 2, because Sura 1 is an invocation. The text starts:

"[002.001] Alif-Lâm-Mîm.
[These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur'ân and none but Allâh (Alone) knows their meanings.]"

OK, so we start with something where no meaning can be given. It might be a spell invoking deep evil, or it might just be a couple syllables. All we know is that we aren't told. We're just supposed to consider it a 'miracle' - notice how we are told what to think?

"[002.002] This is the Book (the Qur'ân), whereof there is no doubt,"

Hold it, right there!

Weren't we just told that noone knew what the first verse means? Now we're asked to abstain from doubt completely? If we're not permitted to have doubt about even something this obviously weird, when else can we have doubt?

Doubt lies at the root of critical, investigative thinking and construction of logical arguments. If we can't have doubt, how can we check the validity of any kinds of arguments, or have confidence that a logical structure is solid?

In other places of the Quran, it adds to the 'no doubt' clause that the book is perfectly clear. If we are to take this to heart, we have broken our trust in critical thinking. This, I believe, is a root cause of Muslims being unable to debate, a phenomenon I've seen in many contexts.

Just for good measure, let's dig in some more. Verse 2 continues:

"a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqûn [the pious believers of Islamic Monotheism who fear Allâh much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allâh much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)]."

After discarding our doubt, we are demanded unquestioning obedience, and introduces the complex system of Islamic rules for everything under the sun. One may wonder, after this dictators' intro, when the religious material is going to show up?

"[002.003] Who believe in the Ghaib"

Footnote here:
" Al-Ghaib: literally means a thing not seen. But this word includes vast meanings: Belief in Allâh, Angels, Holy Books, Allâh's Messengers, Day of Resurrection and Al-Qadar (Divine Preordainments). It also includes what Allâh and His Messenger [sal-Allâhu 'alayhi wa sallam] informed about the knowledge of the matters of past, present, and future, e.g., news about the creation of the heavens and earth, botanical and zoological life, the news about the nations of the past, and about Paradise and Hell."

OK. I think we just OD'ed on religousness... We are not supposed to have doubt about this, of course. Better this way, for not a trace of evidence for this is presented.

"and perform As-Salât (the prayers), and spend out of what We have provided for them [i.e. give Zakât (obligatory charity)"

Here's more important stuff. Not only does this religion want your money, it even states that it was never yours in the first place! This is classical Asian despotism, BTW.

"spend on themselves, their parents, their children, their wives, and also give charity to the poor and also in Allâh's Cause - Jihâd]."

Spend, spend spend, don't be such a miser. Oh, and do support Jihad, too.

We're only 3 verses into the Quran, but have already been asked to believe that rubbish is a miracle, to discard our doubt, to abandon logical thinking, to obey Allah (and, by implication, his representatives - black stones don't speak), to believe that this book represents everything holy, that we owe everything to Allah and should be paying stuff left and right, and support Jihad.

What we get in return is a promise that the next life will be better than this one. One more thing to believe in - swell...

Muslims can't debate for the simple reason that real faith in Islam requests that logic and reason be left at the door.

Posted by: Henrik

at December 19, 2007 6:03 PM

A top Muslim debater said:

Alhumdulilah(Praise be to God)... the Lord has delivered you to me... Robert Spencer. You can always run... but you can’t hide forever. And Robert, make sure you bring your girlfriend Pam to this debate... she is going to be important, because you're going to need to her to nurse you back to health after I get done with you. [...] So if this is the only way for him to come out of his spider hole, so that we can CRUSH his LIES and DECEPTION, then fine let's get it over with. [...] By God's grace, we will bust up this racket. Now you might be thinking that I am avoiding the topic, "Terrorism and Islam", but this is not true. Rather we have been actively debating it and hunting down those liars who have made this claim. [...] When I and Ahmed Bedier challenge Robert Spencer on Islam and terrorism last year, behold! just have a look what choked out of his gullet - out of fear of being exposed in debate, Spencer nervously said I agree [...] etc. etc. etc.

Yes. One of the best Islamic debaters. A veritable Ayatollah of Rock N' Rolla.

Posted by: special_guest

at December 19, 2007 6:27 PM

Allah-hu-akbar , this deceiver has ran away in the middle of a debate.

And remember, this is what I told you would happen:

"I will submit my opening statements to you latest Wednesday. However I am afraid that my
opening shots are going to sink the ship - I am afraid that the opening is going to be devastating that you will abandon the debate right there and then."

And just like clock work, this is exactly what happened. This coward Spencer has said he does not want to continue the debate:

"Anyway, I am through with Nadir Ahmed. He will crow that he won our "debate," but he would have done that no matter what happened anyway"

It should be clear why this chicken-hearted deceiver ran away, it is because:

1. He knew that he would not be able to escape the indictment made against him - that he mislead people into thinking that Islam condemns terrorism. And it was only a matter of time, till I tighten the noose and corner this coward on his deception.

2. His bogus argument that Muslims must making holy war against all deceivers has already been debunked and dismissed in the "Is Islam a religion of peace" debate. These clowns are not able to refute the evidence!!! Video will be available here soon:

www.ExamineTheTruth.com/update

And finally do not be fooled by all the citations Robert Spencer cited, because as you can see... He is not allowing to respond or present my rebuttal :)

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com

Posted by: Nadir Ahmed

at December 19, 2007 6:37 PM

Ahmed -

You're trying to sell the sizzle without the steak.

Please cite the passages in the Qur'an that refute the citations Mr. Spenser uses to advance his arguments.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Posted by: tanstaafl

at December 19, 2007 7:00 PM

1. He knew that he would not be able to escape the indictment made against him - that he mislead people into thinking that Islam condemns terrorism. And it was only a matter of time, till I tighten the noose and corner this coward on his deception.
2. His bogus argument that Muslims must making holy war against all deceivers has already been debunked and dismissed in the "Is Islam a religion of peace" debate. These clowns are not able to refute the evidence!!! Video will be available here soon:

www.ExamineTheTruth.com/update

And finally do not be fooled by all the citations Robert Spencer cited, because as you can see... He is not allowing to respond or present my rebuttal :)

"Rebuttal," to a Muslim, involves repeating Allahu -Akbar a bunch of times and stating how dirty the kuffar are and how we will burn in hell according the the will of Allah.

The only Muslim I've seen who actually knows how to debate is Shabir Ali. He's as much a gentleman as can be expected from a Muslim, and he still resorts to a sort of vicious circularity when arguing about the Qur'an with a Christian or a person of another faith. The universal laws of logic simply aren't valid in Islam, to wit, the law of non-contradiction.

Given the numerous spelling errors on ExamineTheTruth.com, the sloppy organization of the site, and the various links that constitute "rebuttal," I can't any reason to disagree with what Robert has said about you, Nadir.

Posted by: PRCalDude

at December 19, 2007 7:10 PM

Wafa Sultan showed us the answer to that in that now-legendery al-Jazeera broadcast where she absolutely demolished two supposed scholars on Islam (with one hand practically tied behind her back) using plain, ol' logic and good sense.

Posted by: pythagoras

at December 19, 2007 7:20 PM

If Robert wanted to make up a phony straw man to
prove that mohammadans can't debate, he couldn't
have done better than this Nadir Ahmed fellow.

I suspect that these mohammadans don't have any
idea how foolish they look when they pretend to
discuss issues with reasonable human beings.

So much for Nadir Ahmed, master debater.

Posted by: root_cause

at December 19, 2007 8:00 PM

I think what scared away Robert Spencer was the deadly comparison between the Bible and the Quran:

The Bible fully embraces genocide and terrorism, and Jesus Christ himself waged several halocausts against kaffirs...

But Islam clearly condemns terrorism. There are countless passages which demonstrate this..

I think Spencer did not want this fact to be know. Anyways, this is a terrible embarrassment for Spencer.

As for Shabir Ally... then he is a passive non agressive debater with weak arguments, and Muslims do not choose him to represent Islam.. but the kuffar love him because of that.

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com

Posted by: Nadir Ahmed

at December 19, 2007 8:09 PM

Nadir Ahmed:

I think what scared away Robert Spencer was the deadly comparison between the Bible and the Quran:
The Bible fully embraces genocide and terrorism, and Jesus Christ himself waged several halocausts against kaffirs...

Oh, you are an egregious liar. Jesus Christ, eh? If this statement doesn't show everyone, even your dhimmi friends in New Zealand, what a deeply dishonest and dishonorable man you are, nothing will.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe I don't want to debate you not because I have anything to hide, or am unsure of my arguments, but because you are a rather obvious liar and buffoon, lacking even a modicum of basic human decency and civility? I am sorry I ever responded to you in the first place, and am amazed that CAIR, which is generally a canny organization, would be so careless, so to speak, as to dally with the likes of you.

In reality, for anyone who is interested, there is a lengthy examination of the violent passages in the Bible and the Qur'an in my book Religion of Peace?.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985151/002-4986521-7864813?ie=UTF8&tag=robertspencer-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1596985151

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at December 19, 2007 8:17 PM

The Bible fully embraces genocide and terrorism, and Jesus Christ himself waged several halocausts against kaffirs...

Prove it. I'll debate this with you right here.

Posted by: PRCalDude

at December 19, 2007 8:17 PM

PRCalDude,
I am suprised that you deny this. It is well know fact that Jesus Christ waged campaigns of genocide and terror against nations of people.

As I pointed out, Islamic Jihad came to confront and condemn the genocide of Biblical Christianity. And that is why Spencer ran away.

So I accept your challenge. Let's invite all our friends and have a public live debate. Not love letters passed back and forth. I suggest using this software: www.paltalk.com. Its great. we can invite people from all over the world to attend the debate.

Let me know if you accept this challenge.

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com

Posted by: Nadir Ahmed

at December 19, 2007 8:33 PM

Ok Spencer, you want a debate without any wise cracks or "insults" as you put it. Fine. Let's do it. I will only discuss the facts. I had no idea that you would run away because of a little teasing.

Are you happy? Can you come back and lets debate this? I promise no more derogatory comments. Even though you can call me a liar and all that other stuff.. that is fine.

Deal?

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com

Posted by: Nadir Ahmed

at December 19, 2007 8:38 PM

The lack of the concept of a dialectic in Islam is probably part of the reason why they can't debate. Islam actually has about as much philosophical sophistication as the philosophers now known as the Pre-Socratics, only in place of "air", "fire" or "water" as the primordial essence of the universe, Muslims posit Allah and his 99 names.

Ironically, Muslims call everything before Islam "the age of ignorance", when, objectively and rationally speaking, they are still living in a philosophical universe akin to the one inhabited by the Greeks before Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, which, by Western standards, was our "age of ignorance" before Socrates showed us how to truly debate and reach solid conclusions regarding phenomena seen and unseen. Islam, as a whole, would be an "F" paper in philosophy 101, yet these morons treat it like it were Aristotle's "Metaphysics" squared.

The Muslim who posted the "rebuttal" is all "sound and fury, signifying nothing". In other words, he's an idiot.

If he didn't potentially have access to bomb-making materials, the amount of attention a rational human being would pay to him would be nil. Only because he is empowered by Western science to destroy what he could not build, does he matter at all. Even in his destructiveness, he is a parasite.

Objective human history looks at the Muslim and shakes its head in shame at having thrown up (literally and figuratively) such a pathetic figure. He is barely human in his twisted sense of self-importance, relative to his actual achievements, which essentially boil down to following a man who, if he lived today, would have been imprisoned long before he could have had any impact on humanity at large. Muhammed's only "accomplishment" was living in the era before the modern penal system and that is the height of Islamic society.

I know, with as much certainty as Muslims have about the Koran, that the Koran is false. Just as they don't doubt that their worldview is correct, nor do I doubt that mine is correct. Only one of us can be right and I'm betting it's me, and if the only way that Muslims can "prove" to me that I'm wrong is by quoting passages saying I'm wrong from the very book that I know is false, how is that going to get us anywhere? Islam is wrong and evil to the same extent that Nazism was wrong and evil. Some day, probably very soon, all "people of good will" will assent to this assertion and the time for debate will be gone.

Posted by: venividivici

at December 19, 2007 8:49 PM

I am suprised that you deny this. It is well know fact that Jesus Christ waged campaigns of genocide and terror against nations of people.
As I pointed out, Islamic Jihad came to confront and condemn the genocide of Biblical Christianity. And that is why Spencer ran away.

So I accept your challenge. Let's invite all our friends and have a public live debate. Not love letters passed back and forth. I suggest using this software: www.paltalk.com. Its great. we can invite people from all over the world to attend the debate.

Let me know if you accept this challenge.

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com

We don't need any software. You can simply open the debate on your site with your statements and date them, as well as linking my site. I can reply on my site and link your response.

Ahhh....I see you want to debate in a live-chat format. I'm not game for that. We can debate in a static format the way I suggested or not at all so that this doesn't degenerate into a "See what I called the dirty kuffar" thing for your buddies.

Posted by: PRCalDude

at December 19, 2007 8:53 PM

It is well know fact that Jesus Christ waged campaigns of genocide and terror against nations of people.

Before Muslims try to debate, they should first learn the meaning of the word "fact".

Posted by: venividivici

at December 19, 2007 8:55 PM

Illuminating, yes, as you say, Robert. This fellow apparently has no idea what the topic of the debate is, as he doesn't address it anywhere in his lengthy screed.

Nadir, did you know that your name is an English word that means "lowest point"? Bottom of the barrel, indeed. Thought you'd appreciate that as you seem to think that debating consists of making irrelevant and/or misleading comments about your opponent instead of saying something intelligent about the issue.

I personally don't see why Spencer should waste any time if you can't address the subject. Do you have anything at all -- even the teensiest amount -- to say about the subject of the debate: "The schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the hadith, and the Qur'an teach that Muslims must make war against the People of the Book and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law." ?

Apparently not. Or did I miss something? Go back to your sandlot and throw sand in the eyes of the little kids; that's the level of your "debating". There is nothing in your words to demonstrate you've ever read the Qur'an or Hadith; nothing to suggest that you have any knowledge of what the schools of jurisprudence actually say. Can you cite a scholar? Can you quote a reference? Give us a break.

If you think the proposition to be debated is the same as "Islam condones terrorism", then you've some answering to do, for apparently then it is you who are equating Islam with terrorism -- because it is quite clear that all four major schools of jurisprudence do indeed teach this. Spencer was kind enough NOT to equate this to terrorism -- but apparently you can't tell the difference between the two! Case closed, unless you actually have something to say about the schools in question. Do you even have their volumes on your shelf?

Perhaps, Nadir, you think that you're doing Islam a favor by wasting the time of a bunch of antijihadists. Actually, as one of the few opponents of Spencer willing to "take him on", as you would apparently put it, you are doing us a valuable, albeit tiresome, service: You are giving a permanent demonstration of the lack of substance to criticisms of Spencer's work.

The value in your sad lack of debating skills, or substance, Nadir, is that it may motivate someone with a bit more knowledge to rise to Spencer's challenge, rather than let you go on making a mockery of your own supposed position. Perhaps is giving you too much credit, though, because the only "position" I can discern is that you hate Spencer and think he hates muslims, or that he thinks Muslims want to just kill innocent people.

You seem obsessed with Spencer, and the issue of terrorism. Funny, neither one of these was part of the subject of debate. Try again, perhaps. But please stop wasting our time.

Posted by: Archimedes2

at December 19, 2007 9:18 PM

Note that the bully never really answered the question head on. Spout an outrageous lie, hurl a few feeble insults, stomp around the stage verbally, say that the Quran does not espouse terrorism, jihadic war, but never prove it.

Mr. Ahmed is to be pitied. Again, bully, prove that Mr. Spencer is wrong by reasoned discourse, not lies, not hollow threats, not innuendo, but truth. We won't hold our breath for your response.

Posted by: OolongChung

at December 19, 2007 9:19 PM

"Rid me, and deliver me from the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood."

- Psalm 144:11

Posted by: Papa Whiskey

at December 19, 2007 9:46 PM

look, there is no point of trying to make up possible excuses for Spencer to run. It is natural to blame me for his cowardice. Just accept he ran.

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com

Posted by: Nadir Ahmed

at December 19, 2007 10:52 PM

Generally, when dealing with jihadist idiots like Nadir Ahmed (or Mohammed or Al-Whoever), it is best to reverse or substitute what they say because then you will get the truth.

Such as when Ahmed states that: "It is well know fact that Jesus Christ waged campaigns of genocide and terror against nations of people" if you substitute Jesus Christ with Mohammed, then you get the truth.

Of course this should substitute completely for reasoned debate, which is my wont, but it really cuts to the heart of the issue.

Jihadists often do this to disguise their own problems through other people and insist that it is Christians or Jews who run around today chopping people heads off or flying planes into buildings.

Moreover, and I hope Robert Spencer is reading this, but to me, the mere fact that "moderate" Muslim organisations like CAIR (which is essentially a terrorist supporting organisation) or Nadir Ahmed put MORE effort into trying to vilify and slander perfectly sensible and logical scholars such as Robert Spencer MORE than proves that they have a problem.

Because if CAIR and Nadir Ahemd disagreed with jihadist ideology then they would support Spencer. But they don't. The burden falls on them to explain why. And it's because they don't that they have to be treated with suspicion.

Robert Spencer, you are one of the most important authors in the world at this time. May you be blessed and kept safe from jihadists who want you dead.

Have a good day.

Posted by: S Perry

at December 19, 2007 11:04 PM

I edit my above post. When I wrote that:

"Of course this should substitute completely for reasoned debate, which is my wont, but it really cuts to the heart of the issue."

My apologies.

I meant to write "Of course this shouldn't...." etc etc.

Again, have a good day.

Posted by: S Perry

at December 19, 2007 11:07 PM

"I apologize for the length and tedium of my post..."

As for length, it might have been many times as long, and no one would mind -- no one except Mr. Ahmed and those like him, who would be very upset indeed.

As for that "tedium" you allude to, it's a figment of your imagination. A detailed response such as this, from which there is no escape for your adveraries, is thrilling.

Posted by: Hugh

at December 19, 2007 11:23 PM

We're still waiting on the source that Jesus waged war and genocide on numerous nations.

What is the primary source?

Which nations were attacked?

Which peoples were eradicated?

These should be very simple questions to answer for someone with terrific debate skills.

How about just providing search terms that we can punch into google?

Posted by: Peter_Wiggin

at December 19, 2007 11:45 PM

I am suprised that you deny this. It is well know fact that Jesus Christ waged campaigns of genocide and terror against nations of people.
Nadir (lit. "lowest point")

I suppose this is found in the same bible you claim teaches jihad? Perhaps somewhere right after Jesus says to love one's enemies and pray for those who persecute you [Matt. 5:43]. Your ignorance, Nadir, gets more astonishing with every line you write.

As you seem obsessed with discussing Jihad, let's consider the following "point" you make, with no references whatsoever, and even though it does not address the topic:

... the Quran and the Sunnah addressed the issue of terrorism and clearly condemned it...

Well, Nadir, we're well aware of the verses that are supposed to be against terrorism. They require a bit of a stretch to interpret because, for one, the term "terrorism" is a 20th century concept, and for another, the verses you and others adduce generally require some interpretation to bring to bear on the subject ... they don't say any such thing directly.

But let us consider what the term actually means. Terrorism is simply a tactic: it is the use of TERROR to attain ideological goals (generally in situations where other means, such as rational debate or "good old" military force by themselves aren't sufficient. What does the Qur'an have to say about this tactic?

Hmm, let's do a COMPLETE search in the Qur'an for the word "terror" so that we get a complete picture. Not hard, if you have a pdf Qur'an handy, as I do (Malik's translation). Here we go (my emphasis on occurrences of the search term):

First, the relevant passages:

Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers! [151] 3:[151]

Prediction of Islamic terrorist activity?

Ask them: "Who delivers you from calamities in the darkness of the land and of the sea, when you call upon Him in open humility and silent terror: If You deliver us from this affliction, we shall become truly grateful."... But your people are rejecting this (The Qur'an), although it is the very truth." Tell them: "I am not appointed as your caretaker. 6: [63-66]

The Kuffar will call upon Allah with terror, presumably because of the bad things coming upon them (because of jihad?), and the Muslims will reply that they are not responsible for the calamities, that it is the Kuffar's own fault because their kufr.

Let not the unbelievers think that they have won the game; surely they can never frustrate the believers.[59] Muster against them all the military strength and cavalry that you can afford so that you may strike terror into the hearts of your enemy and the enemy of Allah, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah. Remember that whatever you will spend in the cause of Allah, shall be paid back to you in full and you shall not be treated unjustly.[8:59-60]

Clear command to plan and carry out systematic terror attacks, or to sacrifice one's resources so that other muslims can carry these out. He promises that if they have to carry out suicide attacks, or get killed in the process, he'd pay them back, it's all worth it just to kill the filthy kuffar.

Allah turned back the unbelievers; they retreated in their rage without gaining any advantage, and Allah was sufficient to fight on behalf of the believers; for Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.[25] And brought down, from their fortresses, those people of the Book (The Jews of Bani Qurayzah) who supported the invaders, and cast terror into their hearts. As a result, some of them you slew and some you took as prisoners.[33:25,26]

Crowing about past muslim military victories involving tactics designed to strike terror into one's enemies. It's worth reviewing the detailed Muslim histories of the slaughter of the Qurayzah to understand exactly how horrendous these attacks were -- and how very similar to terror attacks today! It fails to mention the 600 or so whom they BOTH "took as prisoners" AND "slew".

This is not to mention the military purpose for this slaughter. You might ask, "of what military value is it to slaughter 600 helpless, bound and subdued prisoners who have surrendered to you (this is prior to the Geneva convention, mind you)? What threat are they? " Ah, but this misses the point -- it is VERY useful if one is gearing up for the battle of one's lives against a similar foe: the citizens of Mecca!

Yes, the purpose of killing all those helpless, subdued prisoners, as clearly indicated in the ahadith, was to put terror into the hearts of the NEXT enemy. It was, as it were, an object lesson for the Meccans...The very epitome of terrorism!

All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Allah, and He is the Almighty, the All-Wise.[1] It is He Who drove the disbelievers from among the People of the Book (reference is to the Jewish tribe of Banu Al-Nadir) out of their homes at the first banishment. You did not think that they would ever go out; and they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah, but the wrath of Allah came to them from where they never expected - which cast such terror into their hearts - that they destroyed their homes by their own hands as well as by the hands of the believers. So learn a lesson from this example! O people of insight.[2] Had Allah not decreed exile for them, He would certainly have punished them in this world, and in the hereafter there shall be the punishment of the fire for them,[3] because they set themselves up against Allah and His Messenger; and he that sets himself up against Allah should know that Allah is stern in retribution.[4] Whatever palm-trees you cut down or left them standing on their roots, was by the leave of Allah, so that He might humiliate the transgressors.[5] 59:[1-5]

Hey, Nadir ... you're named after this Jewish tribe? The lowest of the low, perhaps, if the English word has the same meaning. Your dad and mum must have really loved you. Anyway, more crowing about use of terror to attain ideological goals. Seems Allah is very pleased when Muslims do this stuff!

The remaining verses either use the word "terror" in a manner that seem to have nothing to do with the topic at hand, or apparently refer solely to "judgement day" and so cannot be easily construed as a command or instructions to muslims.

[14:42,43]
[18:18]
18:[45-49]
[20:102]
[21:103]
[27:89]
[52:45]
[34:23]
[39:24]
[76:7]
[79:8]

Hmmm, I must have missed the passages where the Qur'an teaches AGAINST terror tactics. Got some spin for these verses, Nadir?

Posted by: Archimedes2

at December 19, 2007 11:45 PM

My goodness, where to begin?

Nadir, according to noted right-wing, Islamophobic site, www.dictionary.com, has been determined to mean:

na·dir /ˈneɪdər, ˈneɪdɪər/ Pronunciation
3. the lowest point; point of greatest adversity or despair.

Despair indeed.

Robert endures this nuisance all the time. There was another live-action debate offered by Jamal Abu al rub that was declined by Robert for scheduling reasons. Robert, however, did offer an immediate print debate at FPM, which was declined, and then of course, was declared a victory by Jamal. This is typical. Jamal layed out the ground rules of the debate and his presupposition, calling Robert a "Christian theologian" is quite humorous. Link below:

http://www.islamlife.com/news.php

I know the comments on that site are lite, but hey, what can you say?

Back to Nadir Ahmed, he has proposed in his "opening argument" that he has sunk Robert's ship, if you will.

Actually, what is most noticable in Nadir's intro is the lack of any argument proposed until well-after numerous bradaggio and baseless ad-hominem attacks. No need for the link, for it has been provided.

What I initially find most curious is the singular Qur'anic reference that Nadir has put forth as the absolute refutation that Islam condemns "terrorism and genocide": (nope, I'm nor gonna mention Darfur)

4:91:

You will find others that wish to have security from you and security from their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation, they yield thereto. If they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them. In their case, We have provided you with a clear warrant against them.

Security from you?

That Nadir has admitted to this and by his own admission is not big news. In his "argument" in this debate, he has "succintly" put forth:

"As we can see from the following verse, the Quran only allows 1 case in which you can kill your enemy. The enemy must fall in any one of the 3 categories listed above for “clear warrant” to kill him. Therefore, the Muslim must use 4:91 as a guide on who he can and can not kill. We will call this the “4:91 spot check”. Of course, the “4:91 spot check” excludes all innocent civilians and only targets enemy combatants."

You will find others that wish to have security from you and security from their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation, they yield thereto.

1. If they withdraw not from you (in an aggressive attack posture) ,

2. nor offer you peace (have declared intentions for war and have decline your offer for peace) ,

3. nor restrain their hands (armed with weapons),

take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them. In their case, We have provided you with a clear warrant against them.

-----------------------------------------------

What is initially and most noticably absent from this rationalization, is any clear definition of "innocents", and this fact has been "hammered home" by Robert, solely because it is absolutely true and supported by Islamic texts. (nope, I'm not gonna mention Bukhari and chapter 52).

A seperate debate can occur on this point alone. The jihadists and their "mentors" continually hammer this point hame in the US and abroad on a weekly basis at least, and they act upon it, hence the agression towards the kuffar, which if I cared to could attribute to you from ther internet in about a milisecond.

Speaking specifically of Qur'an 4:91, I must say this.

Robert Spencer is baselessly accused of taking singular Qur'anic references "out of context", with no mention of verses that precede or succeed them.

I formally accuse Nadir Ahmed of doing exactly what he himself has historically used as a counter-argument. Nadir has referred to 4:91 as the official catch-all refutation to unjustified jihad, or hiraba, if you will, in Islam.

This is preposterous.

Nadir is guilty of intentionally omitting the context of the Qur'an as a ruse, well-known by another name which shall not be mentioned at this time. (hint: starts with a T, ends with an A, and has a Q in it)

4:91 is relatively innocuous and your reference is expected. But speaking contextually, is it not relevant to also reference adjacent verses of the Qur'an? Let's take a look, shall we, for contextual purposes only:

4:92:

It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allâh. And Allâh is Ever AllKnowing, AllWise.

This is right on my point. Killing fellow Muslims is a crime, potentially punishable by eternal damnation. If it were not intended, then there are protocols for compensation for taking a Muslim's life, by a fellow believer.

Additionally, there is:

4:94:

O you who believe! When you go (to fight) in the Cause of Allâh, verify (the truth), and say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islâm): "You are not a believer"; seeking the perishable goods of the worldly life. There are much more profits and booties with Allâh. Even as he is now, so were you yourselves before till Allâh conferred on you His Favours (i.e. guided you to Islâm), therefore, be cautious in discrimination. Allâh is Ever WellAware of what you do.

Simply said, those who have submitted to Allah are to be treated as Muslims and not subjugated or defiled in any way.

4:101.

And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salât (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies.

Verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies?

Well of course, unless they submit to Allah.

-----------------------------------------------

I could spend an entire month dissecting the Qur'an, the official "book of war" and all its protocols, but I would rather be direct to make a point to draw your response, Nadir.

You also fail to mention abrogation and the resolution between contradictory Qur'anic Meccan verses as opposed to Medinan ones, but that is for another day.

Your opening "arguments" were weak and ineffective. Hell, I'll debate you going forward, and I am certainly not an Islamic scholar of any sorts. I'll readily leave that unpleasant task to Robert, and simply thank him on the back end.

Your move, Nadir.

Regards,

awake

Posted by: awake

at December 19, 2007 11:55 PM

Nadir...how can you expect to out debate RS, when you can't even get passed the commenter's on this site?

Posted by: duh_swami

at December 20, 2007 12:55 AM

Nadir reminds me of Nicolai Carpathia, the Anti-Christ in the Left Behind book series.

Nicolai was always attacking the Christians, and then he would blame them for it. He made himself sound like the victim, and that it was therefore necessary to fight them.

Nadir, you blew it when you said that Jesus Christ is guilty of genocide. Jesus Christ has forgiven me of all of my sins. If by genocide, you mean that he has decided NOT to punish me for my sins, then I'll gladly accept His "genocide"!

By the way, Jesus will forgive you of your blasphemy against Him if you will sincerely ask Him to.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook

at December 20, 2007 12:56 AM

Nadir has certainly been the nadir of this thread.

Robert,

I always appreciate reading your rhetorical pimp-slapping of various evildoers out there. You certainly keep your pimp-hand strong.

Posted by: PRCalDude

at December 20, 2007 1:14 AM

I just "Googled" Nadir Ahmed..what a nut case.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA

at December 20, 2007 2:59 AM

MeThinks Nadir is running a false-flag operation to make Muslims look ignorant and stupid.

Jesus causing Holocausts among the kuffirs? Christ...

Posted by: Henrik

at December 20, 2007 4:54 AM

venividivici,
You were very disparaging of the pre-Socratics. That means Thales, Pythagoras, Anaximander, etc. Now, major mathematical advances are credited to Pythagoras. Do you claim that he was inferior intellectually? That nobody knew how to reason or argue before Socrates?
Don't you think that you're being silly by disparaging the pre-Socratics?
Another point is that we don't have any writings of Thales or Pythagoras that have come down to us. So we can't be sure that we know everything important about them, about their achievements. So we can't be sure that maybe Pythagoras or another pre-Socratic was already arguing dialectically or reasoning as well as any 21st century ignoramus, of whom there are so many. When you compare so many of our contemporaries, including college profs, to Thales and the other pre-Socratics, don't you feel ashamed of the people of our time?
Hasn't the human race regressed in the last 107 years, especially since 1970?

Posted by: Eliyahu

at December 20, 2007 6:57 AM

I would still like Mr. Ahmed to answer the question originally posed, and demonstrate that either Mr. Spencer is incorrect line-by-line as is done in a debate, or stop spouting tripe. Either there is a reasonable answer, or there is hot air.

SO ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED, or admit you have no answer. And by the way, failure to answer is an answer, and an admission of bankruptcy.

Posted by: OolongChung

at December 20, 2007 7:29 AM

"1. He knew that he would not be able to escape the indictment made against him - that he mislead people into thinking that Islam condemns terrorism"

...I think Islam commends terrorism....

Ban Muslim Immigration....

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at December 20, 2007 8:01 AM

Eliyahu,

I wasn't trying to be silly and my disparagement of the Pre-Socratics was only in the context of subsequent developments. Granted we don't have the entirety of their works, but in general outlines what they had to say was inferior to the Socratic method, which was my point in comparing the philosophy embedded in Islam to the Pre-Socratics. The Pre-Socratics definitely represented an advance over the mythological thinking of the even earlier Greeks.

In terms of actual creativity in thought, today's academics definitely pale in comparison to the Pre-Socratics.

I just sometimes find analogies to early Greek history a useful tool to diagnose where Muslims are in terms of their evolution from barbarism. Not very far, I'm afraid, and they seem a bit too content with where they are for my liking.

Posted by: venividivici

at December 20, 2007 10:58 AM

na·dir (ndr, -dîr) n. 1. A point on the celestial sphere directly below the observer, diametrically opposite the zenith. 2. The lowest point.

Posted by: tsarbomba29

at December 20, 2007 11:02 AM

Why can't muslims debate?
Why can't Nadir Ahmed debate?

One technical reason for the form and essence of islamists "debates" is that they CAN NOT under any circumstances permit criticism or even examination of the "perfect example" muhamad, his recitations, biography etc. The same "perfect example" shows on the cases of Asma bin Marwan and many many others how islamists respond to criticism or examination. It is a sin for an islamist do act otherwise. They have to be aggressive and use everything and anything against anyone who refutes mohameds false claim to prophethood.

The big reason though is that islam was too late for the party. The age of prophets ended with Jesus Christ and the New Testament. The faith in One God was given to all in Christianity and whole empires submitted to the words of a Jewsih carpenther and his disciples. All of this, without even noticing the kaaba, hagar or ishmael. So when all was said and done the prophecy ishmael received at birth was to be fulfilled:

11 The angel of the LORD also said to her[hagar]:
"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.

12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

And so it came to be. The outcasts reversed everything: declared the rest of the world outcast, their own delusions - truth, their own savagery - nobility, their own debauchery - morality, their murderous jihad - peace. Even Almighty God himself was turned into a mockery - a petty, jelous and furious despot, who needs to constantly control every aspect of creation, and who has created most of mankind for the fires of hell, except for a few violent, aggressive murderous followers of muhamad, who instead of fire would be subjected to eternal eating-drinking-copulation bliss. How would ANYONE argue with the world, if the above paragraph is their view of the Universe. Almost any other faith could obliterate islamic worldview, hence the dhimmi status, the prohibition of any public display of alternative lifestyle, the violent craving for control over all holy sites (Jerusalem)and the pitifull fear of befrending kafirun (what kind of Truth and Righteousness is there in islam if mere contact with disbelief will destroy a good muslim faith).

Who can actually say it better than exsgtbrown:

Ban Muslim Immigration!

Posted by: Excommie

at December 20, 2007 1:30 PM

What I find interesting is that in about 5 minutes I read through what Mr. Spencer had to say. He made about (give or take a few) 11 statements that can be discussed or debated, in response to each of the concrete statements he could identify in Mr. Ahmed's document. (Note that he quoted it in its entirety, then addressed the statements point by point, an appropriate debating style. One that works significantly better in print than in person. One of my favorite things about print debates!)

For those 11 statements, he provided at least 24 citations, whether they were quotations from the Quran, from a commentator, or from other specific articles where he has already discussed this issue in detail.

Each of those 11 statements and 24 citations can be discussed and debated.

The response in the forum from Mr. Ahmed first offers no direct rebutals of any issues raised, nor any citations. Rather, he chose to focus on the fact that Mr. Spencer laments upon the likelyhood of a detailed substantive debate.

The second response, effectively says, no you are wrong and offers no direct evidence to support that statement. Mr. Ahmed makes several concrete statements, that the general population in North America would consider contrary to the popular belief, with no citations or evidence to back them up.

I think Mr. Spencer point was clearly demonstrated by his oponent. There is a lacking in the ability to debate on this issue.

There has been much discussion on the reasons for this lack of debate, which is probably the most interesting part of this thread for me.

Thank you Mr. Spencer for taking the time to add to the collective wisdom, by researching and presenting the evidence. It is greatly appreciated.

I hope that someone will take Mr. Spencer up on his offer, and respond in a substantive way to discuss the issues raised.

If someone has an example of where that has happened, I would love to read it.

Posted by: geoffc

at December 20, 2007 1:33 PM

look, there is no point of trying to make up possible excuses for Spencer to run. It is natural to blame me for his cowardice. Just accept he ran.
- posted by Nadir Ahmed

ad hominem, personal attack without substance, blame shift, projection, straw man, non starter non-argument nadir. Why bother arguing with another ‘allah akhbar’ non-reasoning blathering idiot? His two lines says it all, the man is a fool.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours

at December 20, 2007 3:36 PM

archimedes2:

A useful list -- but you forgot verse 8:12:

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (Yusuf Ali translation)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012

Posted by: Papa Whiskey

at December 20, 2007 3:38 PM

No need to go to the judges' score cards for this bout.

Your Winner by Technical Knockout and still undefeated RIGHTEOUS ROBERT SPENCER!!!

Posted by: USBeast

at December 20, 2007 8:34 PM

I agreed to debate this point: "The schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the hadith, and the Qur'an teach that Muslims must make war against the People of the Book and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law."
.......................

So Ahmed is here going to make a case that Muslims are not exhorted to behave aggressively toward non-Muslims, and have no desire to subjugate them. How does he go about this? Does he cite schools of Islamic thought that urge living in peace with non-Muslims? Does he personally assure Mr. Spencer that he has no desire to act aggressively toward him, or in any way try to "make him feel himself subdued"?

Not exactly.
...

Ahmed:" Alhumdulilah(Praise be to God)... the Lord has delivered you to me... Robert Spencer. You can always run... but you can’t hide forever. And Robert, make sure you bring your girlfriend Pam to this debate... she is going to be important, because you're going to need to her to nurse you back to health after I get done with you."

I realize that even in the most civilized and respectful debate that there is a certain amount of one-upmanship and scoring of points, but this rhetoric is *insane*. Whatever his following arguments, this opening in itself will do nothing to assure non-Muslims of the peaceful intentions of the Religion of Peace.

Posted by: gravenimage

at December 21, 2007 2:02 PM

it is really amusing how all of Robert Spencer's fans rush to find excuses for him running away :), the truth is ... there is no valid axcuse for this coward Robert Spencer to run.

Dont for get to watch the debate, Is Islam a religion of peace? Most of Spencer's false arguments were dubunked there:

www.examinethetruth.com/update

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com

Posted by: Nadir Ahmed

at December 22, 2007 1:32 AM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.