| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
This post could be entitled Why Can't Muslims Debate? Part II -- perhaps this should be an ongoing series. In Why Can't Muslims Debate? Part I I noted the tendency of self-proclaimed moderate Muslim spokesmen to engage in ad hominem attacks, not just as a secondary feature of their presentation, but as the entirety of their argument. And I suggested: "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."
There is as a companion to this also a tendency toward projection, as manifested by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here; this is also found among those of his coreligionists who profess to reject his Islamic supremacism and hatred.
And so it is that an associate of the raving spitblogger Dean Esmay, Ali Eteraz, with whom I have had several exchanges in the past, attacks this site today in a comment at his own site (thanks to James). After a commenter named Susan recommends Jihad Watch, Eteraz writes:
Let the record reflect that while many pro-Steyn people do not uphold such xenophobic views, a great many of those defending him are quite happily, under the guise of being defenders of pluralism, people of acute bigotry and supremacist tendencies themselves, as evidenced by the website Susan references.
"Acute bigotry and supremacist tendencies"? Really? Is resisting Islamic supremacism in the name of the equality of dignity of women and men, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and the freedom of conscience really "acute bigotry"? It is, of course, in the eyes of American Muslim advocacy groups that seem determined to stamp out all anti-jihad resistance, and which have numerous questionable ties and activities themselves (here is the most notorious example). But shouldn't someone like Ali Eteraz, who claims to abjure Islamic supremacism, see us as an ally?
Maybe so, but instead, he accuses us in turn of "supremacist tendencies" -- and that's where the projection comes in. It isn't that he himself is necessarily an Islamic supremacist, but that he would see in us exactly what we are fighting is an extremely odd charge that I think is illuminated by something Eteraz wrote a few months ago (thanks to Admiral Adama). After a commenter on one of his articles referred back to this piece under the heading, "Ali Eteraz torn up by Robert Spencer," Eteraz responded:
torn up? really?are u kidding me? that christian supremacist? i used to take him seriously until i realized he's a christian polemicist and not a philosopher. his last book was revealing wasn't it? whats it called? how Christianity is better than everything? Even conservative secularists don't take him seriously anymore (and christian traditionalits like d'souza call him an islamophobe.). but im glad you mentioned him here so we could air it all out. good job.
maybe you should consider the following:
Robert Spencer, Confused By Islamic Reformer [Ghamidi]Calls Him Inauthentic; Abuses Me AgainAs to Spencer maligning me:
Despite complaining about how much I abuse him, Spencer keeps misrepresenting me. In the post at issue, I am called a "highly disingenuous Islamic apologist."
Yeah Robert, real apologetic when I call for the separation of mosque and state, and argue for the abolition of the death penalty for apostasy.
A Christian supremacist? Funny thing: D'Souza, whom Eteraz cites approvingly here, thinks I'm a Jewish supremacist. You guys should get your story straight!
But leaving aside Eteraz's apparent ignorance of the meaning of the word "apologist," it seems that his characterization of Jihad Watch as a website manifesting "supremacist tendencies" comes from the fact that I wrote a book with the title Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Now is this, in itself, a "supremacist" exercise? It might arguably be if it were a proselytizing book, which it isn't (unlike, incidentally, the latest offering from Eteraz's friend D'Souza), or possibly if I had discussed questions of the truth of either religion in it (which I didn't), or more to the point if I had called for the conquest and Christianization of the Islamic world (which I didn't). In reality, the book is a defense of Judeo-Christian Western values and civilization on the points on which they are challenged by the Islamic jihadists' supremacist agenda. It is a call for the general recognition of concepts including the equality of dignity of all people that have their roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I have in many other places also (including here, many times), called upon Muslims to renounce supremacism and live in peace with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis -- which is a far cry from any supremacism on my part. Do I want anyone to be subjugated? Anyone to be a dhimmi? Anyone to be subservient to anyone else? Absolutely not. Ali Eteraz has in this entered the realm of fantasy.
A little later on in the comments thread at his site today, Eteraz says something even weirder to Susan:
Well my dear, I urge you to be honest and treat us Fifth Columnists as we deserve to be treated. Just one question: will you be calling it “internment camp” or “concentration camp.”By the way, I am glad you stopped by and expressed your views Susan. I will hope that the editors from National Review, who have linked to this post, see it; this, I imagine, will only further assure them that their longstanding refusal to not link to jihadwatch remains in effect.
The first paragraph is the kind of paranoid smear we often see these days: you oppose the jihad, therefore you must want to put Muslims in camps. If Eteraz were to try to establish that Jihad Watch actually advocates such things, he would have a very hard time finding any statement from me or Hugh or any other Jihad Watch writer to substantiate his claim. We do not hold such positions, we oppose them, and have never come close to advocating anything like that here.
And the part about National Review is just foggy -- is he saying that NR refuses to link to Jihad Watch? But actually they do every so often, most recently on the 3rd of this month, when I participated in a Symposium there and the link to JW was right in my author tagline. Or is he saying that they have refused to stop linking here? In which case I'd like to know who exactly is pressuring them to do so, and in what way.
Later still he accuses us of "nativist bigotry," and goes on to say:
Ultimately I call this xenophobic view of “oh no Muslim immigration!” a form of supremacism because its operative assumption is that something about having a relationship to Islam renders one inherently incapable of adapting to the West. The list of groups to which this kind of supremacism has been applied to in the past includes everyone from the Catholic to the Chinese.
This is getting close to a substantive point, but on close examination it dissolves into just another smear. The idea that because there were anti-Catholic and anti-Chinese nativists in bygone days means that resistance to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism must be the same thing is simply absurd. Eteraz simultaneously overlooks the fact that Muslims are the first immigrant group ever to come to a new country with a ready-made societal model that many believe it is their divine duty to work to implement, and the fact that it is not Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer who originated the idea that Islam will have difficulty adapting to the West -- this is said by Muslims not infrequently. Note, for example, the statements by Muslims about democracy and Islam that I quote here. I wonder by what logic Eteraz thinks that attributing their views to me will keep Muslims from thinking such things.
Anyway, that Eteraz can only call names is a long-standing pattern: I gave up on attempts to discuss matters rationally with him after he savagely attacked my late friend and colleague Tashbih Sayyed -- an attack that came not too long after I had asked him to maintain a civil level of discourse.
Of course, civil discourse is hard to come by in any arena nowadays, and I would be the last one to object to bare-knuckle rhetoric. Name-calling becomes description when you have facts to back it up -- but if mudslinging is all you're bringing to the bout, your chances of winning are not going to be too good. There is a real difference between vacuous name-calling and trenchant description, and it is determined by the substance of one's arguments. When all you can do is call names and traffic in venomous caricatures, people are going to begin to see through you.
And that is why so many people have growing suspicions about many Muslim spokesmen today: people aren't stupid, and they can see when more heat is being generated than light. Of course, Ali Eteraz can engage in substantive discussion, and has done so with me. But in my very first encounter with his writing, I noted that he was leaving inconvenient material out of his statements about Muhammad, and concluded: "I am all for supporting Muslim reformers. But I don't believe that people who ignore or brush aside material that obviously refutes their views are worth trusting as reformers. Because the mujahedin will not ignore or brush aside the material that these pseudo-reformers are busy sweeping under the rug." Then in our lengthy exchanges early this year, he denied clearly established facts and charged me with ignorance for affirming them -- not a tactic that builds trust in one's willingness to deal honestly.
And now, as he begins to work on a larger stage, others are noticing as well. In this Guardian column, Eteraz takes Ayaan Hirsi Ali to task and asserts:
Muslims will cite certain instances from the time of Muhammad, in which he refused to carry out the prescribed flogging even after the adulterers themselves demanded it. Muslims are thus further able to demonstrate - conclusively they believe - that when it came to flogging, Muhammad was compassionate and forgiving.
A commenter, "PeterNW1," called out Eteraz on this:
Chapter and verse please?Muhammad is neither compassionate nor forgiving in this Hadith ...
"Then came to Muhammad a woman from Ghamid and said, 'Messenger of Allah, I have committed adultery, so purify me.' The Holy Prophet turned her away. On the following day she said, 'Messenger of Allah, why do you turn me away? By Allah, I have become pregnant.' He said, 'Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to the child.' When she was delivered she came with the child wrapped in a rag and said, 'Here is the child I have given birth to.' He said: 'Go away and suckle him until he is weaned.' When she had weaned him, she came to the Holy Prophet with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said, 'Allah's Apostle, here is the child. I have weaned him and he eats food.' The Holy Prophet entrusted the child to one of the Muslims, and then pronounced punishment. She was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people to stone her. Khalid ibn Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head. The woman's blood spurted onto Khalid's face and he cursed her. Allah's Apostle heard Khalid's curse. He said, 'Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven.' Then giving command regarding her, the Holy Prophet prayed over her, and she was buried."
(Sahih Muslim, Volume 3, Book 17, no 4206)
There are many other ahadith like that one. Here is just one more, also from Sahih Muslim, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 829:
The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah's Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?" They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them." Abdullah bin Salam said, "You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm." They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift your hand." When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, "Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. ('Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones."
A wrenching image at the end of that one. That man was compassionate, and loving to this woman to the end; Muhammad was not. When Ali Eteraz doesn't even mention such traditions long enough to explain why he rejects them, and doesn't offer any concrete examples of the compassionate Muhammad he prefers, he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his readers.
I have no intention of engaging Eteraz at this point. I have written this merely as a case study of another moderate Muslim spokesman who, like so many others, offers a version of Islam that ignores large elements of mainstream Islamic tradition, such that the likelihood that he will actually sway any Muslims to his view is extremely small -- and has a healthy taste for ad hominem attacks instead of a genuine interest in engaging people with differing perspectives on these issues.
And so I will continue to search for a Muslim who is able and willing to engage in a genuine and mutually respectful dialogue about issues involving Islamic supremacism and reform. Mr. Eteraz ain't the one.
Posted by Robert at December 22, 2007 9:30 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"When beaten, call names."
That is the standard operating procedure for many (not all) on the left. It is the tactic of the amnesty folks in the US - Americans who want immigration laws enforced are bigots, etc.
Eteraz is on my list of people whose words carry zero weight. He joins Senator Lindsay Graham, who is on the list for his own name-calling. Let Eteraz say the sun rises in the east and it won't matter. That's what happens with anyone who reduces a legitimate policy debate to ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: PMK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 22, 2007 10:24 PM
Robert,
the problem is that you go after easy prey - Ali is not the type that would bring up this issue - Jihad was declared against the Christians to confront and condemn the genocide and the terrorism of Biblical Christianity. This was the context of the "sword" passages you quoted. Please check out our debate in which Spencer RAN away:
http://www.examinethetruth.com/jw_debate_main_page.htm
I have yet to meet a Christian or anyone who can debate the topic of Jihad with knowledgeable Muslims. We are ready to debate this anytime.
Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com
at December 22, 2007 10:26 PM
Well, you might have to wait a long time, and your right Eteraz ain't the right one. I don't know what he knows or does not know, but from what I have read he comes off like a juvenile. As far as Mohammad
being kind, considerate, and oh so compassionate, I believe he was. On Mondays and Tuesdays only.
The rest of the week was pandemonium...
at December 22, 2007 10:27 PM
Every time Eteraz et al open their mouths, they sink Islam deeper, proving they are not engaged as fair players or debaters. Nope, not a chance. Islamists can't do that for it's better to keep the truth a big secret for as long as possible.
These people know exactly what they are doing. They create a set of facts for themselves, in an atmosphere of utter rhetoric and contempt for the truth, so that any clued in dissenter can be accused of being a hateful islamophobe to play on the weakness of the mostly uninformed population and it's leaders.
The real result will be that Islamomesia will only expand from here on out.
Posted by: sounder at December 22, 2007 10:29 PM
Who is this guy Dean Esmay? What is his education and background? His experience? I can't find any of that on the web when I google his name. Just his blog, where there is zilch about his background. How can he claim to know Islamic scripture, history, and law better than Robert? It isn't fair for someone so anonymous to lob his molotov cocktails and then run away without delving into the substance of a subject. I don't respect people like this. If he cannot debate fairly, forthrightly, and be a man about it by facing Robert in an open exchange, how can we take him seriously?
at December 22, 2007 10:33 PM
Fred,
After dealing rather extensively with Mr. Esmay, I'd answer your question by saying that in my opinion, no one should take him seriously, on any issue, at any time.
The same thing, of course, goes for our friend Nadir Ahmed above, the subject of the first post in this new series, with his lurid fantasies about Jesus and Christianity. He and Esmay both are the sort of person one keeps in view at all times while smiling reassuringly and backing slowly out of the room.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at December 22, 2007 10:41 PM
“I have yet to meet a Christian or anyone who can debate the topic of Jihad with knowledgeable Muslims.”
Man, you’re just full of yourself aren’t you? Jihad, especially the lesser variety, is to spread Islam and acquire booty. It is the highest form of worship. Not really much to debate here is there?
On the other hand, I’d love to hear Hugh take you down a peg or two, with flair, that would be a fine debate indeed.
at December 22, 2007 10:55 PM
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.
So Islamic jihad was called to save the world from Christians. Does Geo Bush know about this?
Why then do they kill people who are not Christians?
Please don't try and answer that, it just makes your hole deeper.
I thought Jesus was going to be under the control of Mahdi? Boy you people are confusing, do you do that on purpose?
at December 22, 2007 10:57 PM
Robert,
I think I am beginning to understand with more depth the reason why, under Islamic Law, dhimmis are not permitted to study Islamic scriptures. It's fairly easy for them to enforce this when they literally have the dhimmis under their political and military control. Another matter, entirely, where the kafirs are ostensibly outside of such control and can thus raise the alarm far and wide.
Is it just me, or does it not appear to be the case that for the last year or two the anti, anti-jihadists, both Muslim and their dhimmi allies, have been mounting a concerted effort to stifle dissent and the free exchange of information about what Islam really teaches? And it appears that the Saudi government is also stepping up those efforts and getting out the checkbook.
BTW, I've met Prof. John Esposito many years ago at The College of the Holy Cross, when I was a Jesuit seminarian. It pains me to see that The Society of Jesus continues to employ him and protect his career at one of their most pre-eminent institutions, Georgetown University. It just does not fit with the rich tradition of intellectual endeavor for the Society to permit this kind of subversion of our civilization and our cherished religious traditions. I wonder what Fr. Kolvenbach thinks of all this?
at December 22, 2007 10:59 PM
"I’d love to hear Hugh take you [Nadir Ahmed] down a peg or two..."
-- from a posting above
There's no peg left to take Nadir Ahmed down. Robert took him down past all possible pegs the other day. If I had thought of a single thing to add so as to detract, I would have. But I couldn't, because there wasn't.
Posted by: Hugh at December 22, 2007 11:03 PM
"Well my dear, I urge you to be honest and treat us Fifth Columnists as we deserve to be treated. Just one question: will you be calling it “internment camp” or “concentration camp.--Eteraz, in article.
That's right, Mr. Eteraz. Belittle the "little lady" with false familiarity, and genuine contempt. Put her in her "place", and pose your hyperbolic question.
If she refuses to dignify your hysterical silliness with an answer, announce to your sycophants that she has no answer.
If she attempts to answer, mock her, no matter what she says. I've met you before, wearing many faces, in many places.
You must be quite the ladies' man, sir.
Posted by: Abscedere at December 22, 2007 11:52 PM
Fred, to understand Dean and his blog is an interesting study in sociology. First you have to realize that Dean has several Muslim commentators on his site.
You have Eteraz, who was an atheist until about two years ago. His knowledge of Islam is pretty pathetic when you follow him enough. His theory of how to explain away the wife beating verse involved using a Koran that had a commentary note that said it said you could beat your wife but Mohammed really didn't want to do that. Of course Eteraz never explained how the absolute word of Allah didn't mean what is says. Basically, Eteraz is like those leftist Christians who deny what is obviously written in the Bible.
You have Aziz P. who is an Islamic apologist and makes wild accusations from time-to-time. Once he accused Israel of working on a genetic weapon that would only kill Arabs. When called on it, he gave one of the goofiest non-apology apologies I've ever seen.
You also have Willow, who is relatively new and I don't know much about. In general Dean likes these guys so if they tell him Islam is good, it's good because they say so. Dean pretty much purged from his blog any dissenting voices on the issue.
From his writing, I would say Dean is a somewhat disturbed individual. He seems to have emotional control problems and lacks any logical rigor.
Posted by: Terrahawk at December 22, 2007 11:59 PM
The psychpathology of Nadir Ahmed is plain to all who visit his site - http://www.examinethetruth.com/ .
It is obvious that this man can brook no criticism. This is a very real psychotic condition known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It is generally agreed that Islam promotes and, by belief in that particular god-system, induces, NPD.
It is obvious from the moment one reads such statements as 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, that Nadir Ahmed is the classic NPD sufferer.
One can note, very easily, the hallmarks of NPD in this case - that The only reason why I am agreeing to this type of exchange is because Robert Spencer requires it is a typical NPD sufferer's justification for action - the 'I only do this because pathetic, less than I am, you, needs it' is an absolutely typical NPD sufferers statement.
The insulting, non-debate, words - spider hole (is he an arachnophobe?), CRUSH, LIES, DECEPTION deployed before any actual debate, point almost conclusively to middle to advanced NPD - which is perfectly common amongst muslims and consistent with all that we know about them.
Finally, his typical Narcissistic Personality Disorder sufferer's request - then fine let's get it over with says it all; 'I'll debate with you but really it's just a 'pro forma' thing and it doesn't matter what you say because I'm always right and everyone knows it' is the text that runs through Nadir's brain at this point, and the brains of most muslims, at times when he, or they, are challenged.
This is typical NPD behaviour and it is only very rarely that they back this up by actually engaging in any form of meaningful debate; for an NPD sufferer, and this includes most muslims and fundamentalist believers in any other religion also, cannot debate about complex issues because they believe, narcissisticly, in the superiority - the triumphant superiority in many cases - of their own world views and the absolute, and I repeat that word for it important in this context - absolute - rightness of of their beliefs.
What marks out a sufferer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder from all those of us who hold certain (in many senses of that word) beliefs is that an NPD sufferer, such as Nadir Ahmed, cannot conceive that he, or she (and Naseem, who posts occassionally at this site is one such) can ever, on any subject - up to and including God - be wrong.
NPD sufferers such as Nadir Ahmed are incapable of admitting that they could be wrong about the motivations and beliefs of other people. Everything is always personal and about them - a major characteristic of the muslim world today! NPD sufferers have no identity as people but identify as something over and above their own personality - something that lends a spurious credence to the authority that think they have. Obviously, classically, that describes to a tee Nadir Ahmed, and, regrettably, almost all muslims.
Islam, for anyone interested in the human psyche, is nothing more than a sustained exercise in narcissism, and, what is worse, the sustained, self-perpetuating and unjustified narcissism of the human male.
NPD is the governing characteristic of Islam.
Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 23, 2007 12:03 AM
The seemingly futile task of finding anyone to simply talk to about Islamic supremacism and reform doesn’t bode well for any actual reform does it? As a concerned Infidel, I find that troubling. I’m glad Mr. Spencer keeps trying though. It shows where we stand in this “debate.”
Posted by: butterfly at December 23, 2007 12:05 AM
Nadir Ahmed is unable to debate anything because he lacks the most basic knowledge. You can't debate with somebody who suffers from mental flatulence....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 23, 2007 12:10 AM
This sounds like a sure-fire winning strategy to me, "when contradicted and refuted, just bluff and puff and declare victory."
Gee, no wonder these guys tout their eagerness to debate their "advent opponent," Robert Spencer--the outcome is foreordained by their "benificent and merciful" deity [they doubtlessly mean "ardent"].
Yep, you guys sure have to wage jihad against those genocidal Christians, or else there won't be any Amalekites left on the planet!
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 12:16 AM
Hi Oliver I must say in my dealings on the Net with Mohammedans this specter of NPD comes up time and time again the ego,arrogance and stupidity of the average Mohammedan Male is there for all to see. It is my belief that this is a major part in the surrender of personal identity to a CULT which was established by an NPD suffering megalomaniac Mohammad himself and it is evidenced by all the details of his hedonistic, misogynistic, paedophilic, violent and dictatorial nature of him and his CULT and is self evident in the so called holy book the Koran.
Posted by: Realist at December 23, 2007 12:21 AM
eteraz said, on December 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Since we’re talking about Islam as a political project, I would hope that much closer to home we might reflect a bit about how Christianity is infiltrating our military, creating a sort of “Christian Taliban.”
Yep, Christianity is the problem.
/sarcasm
Ah, the military of the USA has always had a majority of Christians, simply because at least 80% of the US identifies as Christian.
at December 23, 2007 12:30 AM
Robert,
Nadir Ahmed keeps clogging your inbox out of obvious jealousy. No wonder the man tries so hard to upstage you. It's obvious that Pamela Geller at Atlas just won't respond to his persistent wooing by phone, fax, or e-mail!
This probably accounts for Charles' hate mail too--these loser "nadir" types keep fuming over "yahoodi" babes!
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 12:45 AM
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/dean_esmay.htm
Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 23, 2007 12:55 AM
Realist: There is very little argument amongst modern clinical practitioners that believers in Islam today mostly suffer from pre-clinical or clinical NPD in most countries. Whether or not their prophet suffered in the same way is a matter for those skilled in the recension of ancient manuscripts but I'd bet a penny to a pound that he did. Everything that I have read so far about him and his life and the way he operated leads me to believe that he was, certainly, an NPD sufferer and, more than likely, clinically schizophrenic.
It would appear from the record that he was also epileptic - poor man - and it is known that long-term epilepsy left untreated damages brain function and induces paranoia and, in some cases, megalomania and schizophrenia. His progressive deterioration, as evidenced in the koran, is absolutely typical of ongoing seizure damage to the brain. Increased paranoia coupled with an increased propensity for violence and a personality change towards advanced Narcissistic Personality Disorder as he grew older is amply born out be any sensible reading of the koran by any, even half-way competent, practitioner.
His predilection, as he deteriorated, for child sex (Aisha) and his fixation on sexual behaviour as he expounded his peculiar beliefs are both valid indicators of a profound personality shift away from 'normal' that can only be accounted for by illness - probably, given his recorded seizures, untreated (untreatable in that day and age) epilepsy and I have a profound sympathy for this man and his well documented decline into unreliable stupidity.
We know today that epilepsy (seizures) when left untreated, can cause profound changes in brain chemistry and in the behaviour of the individual sufferer. There is very little doubt that Mohammed suffered from seizures - probably epilepsy - that became more frequent and disabling as he grew older. The cumulative damage to his brain function accounts for the weird take on the world that he propounded and from which we suffer today.
It used to be believed that epileptics were God's Maniacs. Then we discovered that epilepsy was a disease. Regrettably, Mohammed had his 'voices' and 'visions' long before we understood his suffering and he sparked off a spurious and entirely unwarranted 'religion' in so doing. If only phenobarbitol had been invented before he was born then he would have had a happier life and we would have been spared the current Islamic madness which all unknowingly he has inflicted upon us, poor man. May God grant him rest.
at December 23, 2007 12:58 AM
Seeing Nadir's previous offering, about as far as he could get in straying from the "debate" topic he agreed to, of course once you got past all the chest-thumping, ad hominem and baseless claims of pre-emptory victory over Robert Spencer, one must realize that to continue that "debate" was pointless. T
To further agree to a face-to-face debate with the poster child of the the "lowest-point" of Islamist mentality, which Nadir embodies fully, Mr. one Qur'anic verse to end all discussion about Islam condemning "terrorism" would be, quite possibly, the most collosal waste of time in history.
For lack of a better term, Nadir Ahmed is a punk, with his strings being pulled by others, and if you look closely enough, you can actually see Ahmed Bedier's hand penetrating through his back. All that is missing is the pupeteer's make-up on his face.
I guess it could be coincidence that they both operate out of south Florida, then again, I guess I could also be wrong about the tooth fairy.
But I wouldn't bet a dollar on either reservation.
Posted by: awake at December 23, 2007 1:26 AM
butterfly: We're here, Robert Spencer is here. Hugh Fitzgerald is here.
You are here! Stop whingeing! This is the debate! Join in! It's the only one that we've got and it's good to go!
I, for one, look forward to your next contribution to this ongoing and most important debate.
We are the resistance.
Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 23, 2007 1:56 AM
Thanks Oliver, for your insights. My take is that Mo's 'voices','visions', and other bizaare behaviour, while certainly classic paranoid schizophrenic per modern psychiatry, has also the classic demonic possession characteristics witnessed by myself and many others involved in ministry.
Sadly, there remains 'a great gulf fixed' as the bible says, between modern clinical thought and biblical Christanity. By the way, he could certainly have been epileptic.
This leads me to believe that pheno alone would have helped but not delivered him from the entities that had the plan to use him to enslave the millions in this 'death cult' as they have with other modern cult leaders that have caused their followers to die. However, a few strong doses of thorazine would have done the trick!
I believe that 1400 years of Islams progression bespeaks of an engine of demonic origin driving the rantings of this sick man. However, it does take Faith to come to this conclusion. I am not suggesting that brain abnormalities, chemical imbalances and mental illness's dont exist.
I happen to believe that People who say that Christians and Muslims pray to the SAME God are actually attributing schizophrenia to Father God because the Koran is so opposite of what the Bible teaches.
Posted by: guide inside at December 23, 2007 2:12 AM
There is also the possibility that Mohammed's weird behaviour and sayings were induced by advanced gonorrhea. His behaviour and his god's-message delusions are entirely characteristic of that disease in its middle-advanced stages according to the records of the time. It certainly wasn't an uncommon disease of that time amongst the less civilised tribal peoples of the penninsula - and it went on, as a disease, to become the scourge of Europe gfor over three hundred years.
There is much evidence to indicate that a certain madness, including seizures, could result from this virulent STD.
It would explain a lot, wouldn't it.
Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 23, 2007 2:18 AM
OliverPCamford,
You give a very clear breakdown of what NPD is, and I thank you. It's one of those things which I knew and felt, but would never have been able to put into words.
I read a book, about a year ago, "The Case of Mohammed". It was written by a physician, whose name I can't recall, right this minute. His theory, too, was that Mohammed had epilepsy--temporal lobe epilepsy, to be exact.
It's a tragedy that he managed to make a religion out of his skewed perceptions. I guess his followers liked the sound of what he had to say. It amounted to divinely sanctioned immorality.
Posted by: Abscedere at December 23, 2007 2:20 AM
guide inside: Whilst appreciating that you believe that a certain demonism can explain Mohammed's actions I think that I will stick with reason and science. Your 'great gulf fixed' is a chasm so wide and a void so deep and a step into suprastition, and superstition, so great that I cannot go there.
Magic and wand waving and the conjuring of demons, as you advance, is not necessary in order to explain the behaviour of Mohammed - or any other historical figure for that matter. Every time some threat against our Christian heritages comes upon the scene there are many, like you, who argue for demons and claim a ministry that has fought them.
I will stick with my God-given reasoning abilities and with my faith in Jesus Christ who cast them, the demons, out for all times and who fulfilled all the prophecies including those in the Book of Wisdom (in the Apocrypha - for you Protestants). God gave us our brains and our abilities to reason and we should use them in his service and in our service. If we can't even do that after 5 billion years of His evolutionary plan then we are a sorry apology for His Divine plan indeed.
Our sciences, young and immature though they may be, are a far better way of ordering the world in God's image than your suprastitions and superstitions - a far better way of discovering the world, the universe, than your reliance upon the words of some folk who lived two millenia ago in a different world.
God, if He exists (and I believe He does) still lives and still speaks. He cannot be confined in some collected sayings gathered together and called Divine and Immutable simply because such sayings appeal to you and yours.
The Spirit still moves.
Or, to put it another, and far more revolutionary, way: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then, was the gentleman".
If you fail to understand the many levels of meaning that that phrase has then you cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, call yourself a Christian - but, and equally as important, you cannot call yourself a reasonable person.
Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 23, 2007 3:31 AM
guide inside: And just remember this in your ministry and be afraid, very afraid - 'John the miller grinds small, small, small.'
Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 23, 2007 3:41 AM
guide inside: And there'll be no corvee paid by us to you 'priests' in the final reckoning; of that you may be certain.
Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 23, 2007 3:47 AM
Ladies and gentlemen
over at dhimmi watch I believe I have just encountered a classic example of this last-resort trick, to wit, 'when beaten, call names'.
Be aware of this and other markers - they may assist us in stripping the masks from the would-be Nu'aym bin Mas'uds who sometimes prowl the comments floor.
Because no matter how rough things sometimes get in here, most of us Infidel regulars do manage, most of the time, to keep our heads. Some of us may not be very good at argument, but we do, I think, attempt accuracy, and I think we generally hang onto the basic courtesies, avoiding ad hominem and gratuitous insult.
I have just read my way through all the articles and discussion, right up to December 06. The consistent mark of the openly-identifying Muslim posters is that sooner or later they comport themselves exactly as Robert has described.
Furthermore: those who do not at once identify as Muslims or Muslim sympathisers, but who are eventually 'unmasked' as such, ALSO display exactly the same characteristics: ceaseless shapeshifting; and at the last, when pinned to the wall, ad hominem, slander, lies, and direct insults to the person.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 23, 2007 5:18 AM
Here's another one of these wankers who believes that we're all clueless and beyond reason to resist the cult of Muhammad:
Irfan Yusuf, a nasty piece of work, another 'human rights lawyer'- Downunder. 'Human rights' for Muslims only, of course.
How the hell did this guy get into Australia?
Sample:
Millions of Muslims have gathered in Mecca to take part in rites dating back over 3000 years in a place they believe was consecrated by Abraham. Their relatives and friends back home will be celebrating with prayers, exchange of gifts and visits to family and friends. In Australia, the end of festivities will approximately coincide with Christmas Eve.
Meanwhile, Jewish Australians have recently completed the eight days of Hanukkah, commemorating the sacrifices of the Jewish warriors who defended their House of Worship and their faith in the Maccabean revolts some two centuries before Christ.
A calm and rational study of Abraham's triplet faiths would lead any reasonable person to conclude their similarities well exceed their differences. To believe otherwise, and to manufacture hatred between followers of these faiths, requires a suspension of reason.
http://planetirf.blogspot.com/2007/12/joy-to-world-of-non-middle-east.html
If that's what he calls 'reason' then he is really from another planet.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 23, 2007 5:19 AM
dumbledoresarmy,
I share the unease that you have expressed elsewhere about our friend, Mr. X. I appreciate the insights you share in your posts.
Your sympathy for the devil is touching (the man, not the malady--certainly not the malice). I still wonder how Muhammad became the author and agent of so much evil and harm in the world--doubly so for his followers at the time.
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 8:47 AM
Robert,
Do take note of the jest I posted above!
If you really want to be the undoing of Nadir Ahmed and his kind, casually cast down a gratutious boast of your winning ways with the fairer sex; that should make 'em seeth.
A tantalizing hint of your popularity among the ladies, the thought of adoring throngs of feminine admirers, each eagerly presenting her own copy of your latest best-selling book for a dedication to her, will certainly cause your bested rivals to fly into helpless (dare I say impotent?) RAGE.
Which leads me to ask:
Mr. Nadir, do you Yahoodi?
at December 23, 2007 9:13 AM
OliverPCamford's descriptions of Muhammad's narcissistic behaviors and discussion of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE, multifaceted disorder/schizophrenia-bipolar disorder) mirrors the book written by Ali Sina "Understanding Muhammad, A Psychobiography of Allah's Prophet".
Ali Sina describes his book like this:
Islam is the brainchild of Muhammad. Muslims read his words in the Qur’an and hadith and follow his examples in every detail of their lives. To them, he is the best part of creation, the most perfect human being and the example to follow. They believe that if he did something, no matter how egregious, that must be the right thing. No question is asked and no value judgment allowed.This book presents two theses. The first is that Muhammad suffered from narcissistic personality disorder. The second is that he was affected by temporal lobe epilepsy. He may have had other mental disorders as well but these two conditions of personality and brain disorder explain the entire phenomenon known as Muhammad. This book proves with overwhelming evidence that Muhammad was disturbed. Though he believed in his cause and was sincere in his claim, yet he could not differentiate the imaginary from the real. His contemporaries and those who knew him better, called him majnoon (lunatic, crazy, possessed by jinns). They unfortunately succumbed to his brute force and their voices of sanity were silenced. New discoveries of the human brain have finally vindicated them. But we should keep in mind, that despite psychological disorder, a narcissist is fully aware he is lying and he is the first to believe in his own lies.
To the best of my understanding, after experiencing problems with the previous publisher, Ali Sina is currently looking to re-issue his book with a new one. When it is re-released, I highly recommend purchasing it!
at December 23, 2007 9:44 AM
These so called moderates aren't reformers, they're door jammers. They're doing their part for the Jihad...they're just lying. What do you expect, they're Muslims...What did the Prophet say about war? War is...
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at December 23, 2007 10:58 AM
...Hell?
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 11:13 AM
...Peace?
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 11:14 AM
...Good business?
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 11:18 AM
...Unhealthy for living?
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 11:22 AM
[q]It's a tragedy that he managed to make a religion out of his skewed perceptions. I guess his followers liked the sound of what he had to say. It amounted to divinely sanctioned immorality.[/q]
I have long believed that Muhammad's success in Medina, as opposed to his failure in Mecca, is, in part, attributable to the fact that in Medina he gathered in a lot of criminals who liked the idea that raiding caravans and taking slaves were divinely sanctioned. And as his merry band of robbers exhibited more success in brigandage more and more flocked to his banner. His new religion was successful because it appealed to the salient cultural values of Arabian males.
The discussion about the possible medical causes of his descent into violence, misogyny, sexual degeneracy, and frightening ruthlessness is enlightening. I think there is much merit to these educated speculations. It does fit a pattern. Also, the viewpoint that there was more than mere mental degeneration going on makes sense to me as well, being also a man of Catholic Christian faith who, while not a biblical literalist, does take seriously the cosmic dimension of the struggle between good and evil. Clearly, the Demonic has hatched, in Islam, the perfect storm of a scourge upon humanity. If Satan wanted a potent weapon for dispiriting and destroying us, I cannot think of a more perfect way to accomplish this than to inaugurate a "religion" to effect that project.
And that is what we, who are critics of Islam, find most frustrating. We live in a time when, because of the secularization of culture and the obfuscation that surrounds any discussion about "religion" many people do not appreciate the danger lurking. Labeling Islam a "religion" gives it cover in our legal and political system. Our people are trained/indoctrinated into an inaccurate reading of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers' intent, which Islam uses to great effect. I think it can be easily proven that Islam is not a real religion, but rather a totalitarian ideology that glorifies criminality. Our elites easily go along with the misnomer, and thereby the proper debate about Islam is difficult to pull off in our time and context without endless effort on our part to justify the value and urgency of having that debate.
at December 23, 2007 11:45 AM
FredIsinglass,
My perspective is similar to yours, and I sense much the same things.
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 11:58 AM
Mr. OliverPCamford,
As I see it, no debate is necessary. Islam is a death cult. It should be “dealt with” posthaste with every available tool at our disposal. Both Robert and Hugh have detailed steps to deal with jihad, and Islam, but as far as I know none of their suggestions have been implemented. We’re still debating. We debate, the jihad marches on. How long must we wait? How many women must suffer, Infidels die, or nations fall before we wake and rise to action? Debate? Pshaw.
Obviously, you find me annoying, so I will not linger.
at December 23, 2007 12:24 PM
Oliver,
I'm sorry, but I misdirected some of my thoughts (about your comments re:NPD and Muhammad) to our friend dumbledoresarmy. Excuse me for my confusion!
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 12:40 PM
He said "war is deception" about a thousand years after Sun Tzu. Mohammed's success as a religious leader should give every middle aged huckster a reason to rededicate himself. Heck, I think I might have a world-dominating money-grubbing Abrahamic spin off myself!
Posted by: Beagle at December 23, 2007 12:59 PM
butterfly,
We here not only join in debate, but in the informing, persuading, educating, lobbying, exchange of ideas, formulation of plans, coaxing and rousing to action of our fellow world citizens--that, together with mutual support and camaraderie, must count for something.
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 1:11 PM
Beagle,
It sure seems to work for "televangelist" Robert Tilton and other wolves in sheeps' clothing!
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 1:16 PM
Just like the account of Jesus and the Devil, perched on the Temple parapet, the Kingdoms of This World arrayed in their spendor before them; yes, we can see it all now--"The Beagle Bugle of Beautific Beatitude," drawing 'em in like moths to a flame.
Yesiree, there's no better place to set up business than the Temple courtyard, among the stalls of the vendors and tables of the moneychangers!
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 1:28 PM
Sorry, I misspelled "gratuitous," above, transposing a pair of letters--I'm so ashamed, I can't show my face anymore (even given the anonymity of the internet).
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 1:38 PM
As I have said in other places, Robert Tilton has been exposed as the fake he is, yet people still send him money.
Heh heh heh. Just goes to show you, if you start your own religion, no matter how stupid (write sci-fi ,little things in volcanos) there are some who will believe and follow with their money and loyalty.
Go figure.
Mohammad had a nice little racket. Pablo Escobar should have learned from him.
at December 23, 2007 1:56 PM
He has a website.
How to pay your bills supernaturally.
http://www.successinlife.tv/home.html
at December 23, 2007 2:00 PM
This is my final post about Tilton, but look at how he has bilked people. There's one born every minute.
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/tulsaworld02.html
at December 23, 2007 2:06 PM
Robert thank you very much for the link! Wow I got linked by Jihadwatch...maybe I may start posting again. Been pretty depressed about the state of the world...seems like we are winning battles and losing the war. Europe will be gone soon and when they are we are not far behind.
Dean Esmay is a clown...Monumental Naivete coupled with a childlike belief in statements by Mohammed’s followers results….
at December 23, 2007 2:11 PM
Yes, it does John C, and those are important things. In no way did I mean to imply otherwise.
Posted by: butterfly at December 23, 2007 2:41 PM
Very well said, Fred!
Posted by: guide inside at December 23, 2007 3:31 PM
"To the best of my understanding, after experiencing problems with the previous publisher, Ali Sina is currently looking to re-issue his book with a new one. When it is re-released, I highly recommend purchasing it!"
Posted by: justamomof4
So do I--it's a good book. I can well understand how Ali Sina might be having problems with the original publisher. The proofreader, for one, did him a disservice. The original book is marred by typos, and lazy spell checking. There are several instances where "there" should be "their", etc. What is that a case of? Homophones? Well, whatever, they really snag the eye, and take the reader out of the book.
I hope a new publisher will not hand the material to his laziest proofreader, this time.
Posted by: Abscedere at December 23, 2007 3:56 PM
For all you Tilton fans: The Best of Tilton
Posted by: USBeast at December 23, 2007 5:26 PM
dean esmay (lowercase on purpose) is an imbecile.
Don't even bother.
Posted by: darcy at December 23, 2007 7:15 PM
Just because you wrote "Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't" and then promote it in your comments section doesn't necessarily make you an expert. It just means you wrote a book. And you may or may not be a supremacist website (although I can go along with the theory that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be ...), but certainly some of your links advocate supremacist viewpoints and those people would be very happy to see concentration camps inside our borders.
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
Posted by: 13 Martyrs at December 23, 2007 7:16 PM
Thirteen Martyrs,
Two questions, if I may be indulged:
Have you read Mr. Spencer's book(s)?
Does your handle, "13 Martyrs" refer to mass murderer Marc Lepine's victims?
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 7:34 PM
"13 Martyrs":
Just because you wrote "Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't" and then promote it in your comments section doesn't necessarily make you an expert. It just means you wrote a book.
The word "expert" does not appear in my post above. Is there a substantive point I make in the book or elsewhere with which you would like to take issue on substantive grounds, or are you merely out to prove my point again?
And you may or may not be a supremacist website (although I can go along with the theory that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be ...)
At this website I have consistently advocated the equality of dignity and rights of all people. What exactly makes it supremacist? Please substantiate your "walks like a duck" remark with specific "supremacist" quotes from what I (not unmoderated commenters) have written.
...but certainly some of your links advocate supremacist viewpoints...
Really? I didn't know that. Which ones? If you're correct, I'll remove the links.
...and those people would be very happy to see concentration camps inside our borders.
Anyone who wants to see concentration camps inside our borders is neither my friend nor my ally. Please substantiate your assertion with readily verifiable evidence.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at December 23, 2007 8:37 PM
And you may or may not be a supremacist website (although I can go along with the theory that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be ...)
Prove it.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 23, 2007 8:59 PM
I've had this same argument myself for too many years now Robert...
Who is the "racist"..
I've found that most liberal thinkers..(and I used to be one by the way,and still count myself as a classical liberal)... missed a few history lessons in uni or class.
I boiled it down to this hypothesis or alegory.
Most liberal thinking people went through their education and still go through there lives trying to avoid real horror and the true realities of life.
So my my analogy was that they missed a few classes on Middle East history and decided to take the notes from a guy that went and they live by those few notes.,,so who wrote those notes?
Basically they live in denial of history and always have done.They hate the gruesome aspects of history and it's truths..they will avoid them at all costs..why?..because they are weak and still love the idea of we are all the same..brotherly love is their game.
This same history has of course been re-written in our era to suit a certain agenda.
But,I've seen this denial in it's almost fiercest form when i've spoken to an otherwise rational person and they shut there eyes and ears and literally say.."i'm not listening,i'm not listening,i'm not listening,"
I've asked.."what is it that your not listening to..?"
They can't take cold hard facts...
To surmise Robert we are in a period of denial and after denial comes acceptance..
It's like the cycle of grief but I believe personally that most left leaning people are still grieving for the end of liberalism,or at least the acceptance of it's failure.
It's all to do with a basic acceptance of common sense..bringing back common sense which I believe is the basis of rational thought..
Or as we say up North here England..
Say what you see...
It's an almost Platonic return to rational thought that the liberal can't stand and this is why I think anti-americanism works.
It's anti-rational..anti-common sense...
And although I still live in the U.K. I've spent many years in the U.S. and have seen the difference betwixt the two cultures...
at December 23, 2007 9:36 PM
13 Martyrs,
Yes, I have the answer to my second question; I followed the link and read the right sidebar.
Posted by: John C at December 23, 2007 9:47 PM
Robert and all,
I surmise that "13 Martyrs" is suggesting, given the title of Robert's book, ROP?: Why Christianity Is, and Islam Isn't, that Robert is chiefly interested in absolving--whitewashing--Christianity and promoting it, at best; at worst, that he is chiefly interested in establishing Christian supremacy--perhaps partly on racial grounds--and in persecuting Muslims.
I strongly suspect that 13 Martyrs has not read the book, or any of the others, written by Robert.
at December 23, 2007 10:00 PM
Did anyone notice Oliver P's postings after mine? Did it seem like threats to any of you? I sensed what I have experienced here on J.W. before. It seems at the mere mentioning of Faith in the context of the debate it has seemed to raise the ire of a few different posters. I mean no harm nor am I looking for someone to spar with. My faith is who I am and what I am. I cannot separate the two.
It distresses that Oliver says he is a Christian and yet dismisses as ancient fable the book that tells us all about who and what He, (Father God) is.
I believe it is very foolish and unwise to try to separate God from His Word. Oliver scolds about trusting on the writings by folk that lived some two millenia and then proceeds to quote John Ball from the middle ages.
Oliver then suggests that God has walked away from His Book not wanting to "be confined" by what He, Himself has written. He then says "The Spirit still moves." My wondering is--of what Spirit doth he speak?
He then attacks my Christianity, tries to instill fear, and exhibits an almost, dare I say, demonic rage against me.
Comments welcome.
Posted by: guide inside
at December 24, 2007 6:02 AM
Ollie also says that Jesus has cast out the devil once and for all. I cant find that in the word and it begs the question--Whos doing all the evil in this old world.
P.S. I also wish to state that I do not have a 'deliverance' ministry as such, but ministering in prisons as my wife and I do, we encounter some of the most evil people in the world. They testify to us that 'something' overcame them and caused them to do what they have done, including ones that have said 'the voice' told me to do it. Now whose voice might that be? Hmmm.
Ask any heavy drug user and they say they actually see the devils around them.
Posted by: guide inside at December 24, 2007 11:51 AM
I have yet to meet a Christian or anyone who can debate the topic of Jihad with knowledgeable Muslims. We are ready to debate this anytime.Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.comPosted by: Nadir Ahmed
I guess you should pull the plank out of your own eye first. Remember that little challenge you put to us about whether or not Jesus advocated genocide? I answered you here after our email exchange and haven't heard back from you since.
Posted by: PRCalDude at December 24, 2007 12:11 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)