Showing posts with label Robert Spencer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Spencer. Show all posts

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Robert Spencer's New Book and Conference Call

Ocean Guy was in on a Conference Call with Robert Spencer, who is coming out with a new book: The Truth About Muhammad. I'm still working on his Politically Correct Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

I just checked Amaon, and the complete title of his new book is:
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion

Ocean Guy has links if you want to know what went on at the Conference Call.
I'm sure it wasn't boring.

Technorati Tag: .



Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The Majority of Muslims Cannot Read The Qur'an

In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, Robert Spencer writes that not every Muslim is a terrorist. Why not? Because since
the Qur'an is in difficult, classical Arabic, and must be read and recited during Muslim prayers in that language only, a surprisingly large number of those who identify themselves as Muslims have scant acquaintance with what it actually says. (p. 43)
According to Spencer, for Muslims this applies not only to the classical Arabic of the Qur'an, but to modern Arabic as well--and the Qur'an is often memorized by rote without having any clear idea of what it actually says.

That last point is substantiated by the New York Times in an article about the Muslim Center of New York, where students from 7 to 14 years old spend the entire day from 8am to 5pm, including the summer, just memorizing the Qur'an. Ann Althouse points out this arrangement violates the laws of compulsory schooling. But the article also points out one of the things that makes the memorizing so challenging:
Making the work even more difficult, the students, for the most part, do not understand what they are reciting. Muslims believe the Koran was spoken to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel in Arabic. Because it is seen as the literal word of God, the use of translations is frowned upon. Students know how to pronounce the words but mostly do not know what they mean.
Going one step further, Raphael Patai, in The Arab Mind, writes that the difficulty in understanding the Qur'an extends not only to the non-Arab Muslims, but to Arabs themselves:
The unschooled, who form the majority in most Arab countries, speak a local, colloquial dialect which is so different from literary Arabic as to make it appear almost a foreign language...They have their own language, which is adequate for all their needs and which is the only tongue they know, apart from a few verses from the Koran which are in literary Arabic, and which make them aware of the existence of a literary language that is greatly different from their own idiom (p.196)
As far as the educated Arabs who can understand the classical Arabic of the Qur'an:
Even among the educated Arabs, the knowledge of the literary language is primarily a passive one. they know it well enough to understand it, enjoy it, come under its magnetic influence; but they do not know it well enough to speak it with any degree of fluency.
Keep in mind that according to Patai, the uneducated Arabs who do not understand the Qur'an make up 90% of the Arab population. (p. 198)

Michael Cook writes in The Koran: A Very Short Introduction, on the options on how to deal with the Arabic barrier:
There are only two clear-cut solutions to this problem: either the believers have to learn Arabic, or the Koran has to be translated...mass literacy in a foreign language is not a very realistic educational project...[and] the non-Arab Muslim world shows little sign of adopting the idea of a vernacular scripture in the manner of sixteenth-century Protestantism or twentieth-century Catholicism. (p. 26-7)
That is not to say that the Qur'an has not been translated.

In Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq writes in his introduction:
The majority of Muslims have to read the Koran in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Koran into, for instance, Persian, since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Koran has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities.
So, bottom line is--so what? What does it matter whether Muslims can read the Qur'an in the original Arabic or have to read it in translation?

For one thing, Ibn Warraq writes that some Muslims claim that outsiders are not qualified to critique what is written in the Qur'an until they are actually able to read it in the original. In light of the fact that a majority of Muslims themselves cannot read and understand the Qur'an in the original, such a counter-argument falls short.

More importantly, as alluded to by Robert Spencer, the difficulty of the language of the Qur'an to some degree has allowed for some level of moderation with Islam by keeping some of it's more extreme statements out of the limelight. So what happens now that the number of translations and their availability is on the rise?

According to Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad, in a response to an email:
The Koran is now available in translation to local languages on an unprecedented scale in history...This, in my humble opinion, fuels Islamic fundamentalism...
Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: and and and .

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Al Qaeda To Attack U.S.--Now They Tell Us

Artuz Sheva reports Al-Qaeda Issues "Offer that Can't be Refused"
An Al-Qaeda video released on Saturday called on Americans and the rest of the Christian world to "repent" and convert to Islam. Expert: "This is the invitation that precedes the attack."
The newly released video, posted on an extremist Islamic website, contained footage of Al-Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri and a man identified as Adam Yehiye Gadahn. Gadahn is an American convert to Islam, wanted by the FBI for his alleged role in developing Al-Qaeda propaganda in Pakistan.

“To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent [your] misguided ways and enter into the light of truth," Gadahn threatened, "or keep your poison to yourselves and suffer the consequences in this world and the next... But whatever you do don’t attempt to spread your misery and misguidance to our lands.”

“Muslims don’t need democracy to rid themselves of their homegrown despots and tyrants. What they do need is their Islamic faith, the sprit of jihad and the lifting of foreign troops and interference from their necks,” Gadahn stated. He read verses from the Koran in Arabic, and then translated them into English, calling on Muslims to strengthen their faith and expel their rulers.

Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch and author of several popular books on Islam, explained to Arutz-7's Nissan Ratzlav-Katz that the tape "appears to be the call to Islam that the Muslim Prophet Muhammed requires to be extended to infidels before they can be lawfully attacked by Muslims."

"Once that call is rejected," Spencer feels, "Muslims are required to begin hostilities in order to subjugate the infidel population in question and bring it into the Islamic social order. Thus it seems likely that terror attacks and/or attempted terror attacks will follow Gadahn's 'invitation' - although there is no certainty that they will follow within a certain time frame."

Al-Zawahri, also speaking on the tape, urged viewers to heed Gadahn's “Invitation to Islam. He stated ominously, "To the American people and the people of the West in general ... Allah sent his Prophet Muhammad with guidance and the religion of truth ... and sent him as a herald."
If Spencer is correct, then this call to 'accept Islam or face attack':

1. is a warning--unlike 9/11. How would Al Qaeda explain that--Practice?
2. amounts to 'convert or die'--what about "there is no coercion in religion." Religion no, Islam yes?

According to Answering Islam
S. A. Rahman makes the distinct claim:

This verse is one of the most important verses in the Qur'an, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.... [1]
Compare that with what Raphael Patai writes in The Arab Mind about
the doctrine of Din Muhammad bi'l-sayf (literally, "The religion of Muhammad with the sword"), which required all Mulsims to spread Islam by the force of arms. [p.155]
After all, Islam's massive occupation during its heyday reached as far as Russia.

Rahman does admit that some commentators minimize the area covered by the 'no compulsion' verse, and claims with a straight face:
Such an interpretation can perhaps be attributed to the unconscious pressure of orthodox tradition. [emphasis added]
Have Rahman and his fellow apologists ever heard of Al Qaeda?

Technorati Tag: and and and .

Al Qaeda To Attack--Now They Tell Us

Artuz Sheva reports Al-Qaeda Issues "Offer that Can't be Refused"
An Al-Qaeda video released on Saturday called on Americans and the rest of the Christian world to "repent" and convert to Islam. Expert: "This is the invitation that precedes the attack."
The newly released video, posted on an extremist Islamic website, contained footage of Al-Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri and a man identified as Adam Yehiye Gadahn. Gadahn is an American convert to Islam, wanted by the FBI for his alleged role in developing Al-Qaeda propaganda in Pakistan.

“To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent [your] misguided ways and enter into the light of truth," Gadahn threatened, "or keep your poison to yourselves and suffer the consequences in this world and the next... But whatever you do don’t attempt to spread your misery and misguidance to our lands.”

“Muslims don’t need democracy to rid themselves of their homegrown despots and tyrants. What they do need is their Islamic faith, the sprit of jihad and the lifting of foreign troops and interference from their necks,” Gadahn stated. He read verses from the Koran in Arabic, and then translated them into English, calling on Muslims to strengthen their faith and expel their rulers.

Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch and author of several popular books on Islam, explained to Arutz-7's Nissan Ratzlav-Katz that the tape "appears to be the call to Islam that the Muslim Prophet Muhammed requires to be extended to infidels before they can be lawfully attacked by Muslims."

"Once that call is rejected," Spencer feels, "Muslims are required to begin hostilities in order to subjugate the infidel population in question and bring it into the Islamic social order. Thus it seems likely that terror attacks and/or attempted terror attacks will follow Gadahn's 'invitation' - although there is no certainty that they will follow within a certain time frame."

Al-Zawahri, also speaking on the tape, urged viewers to heed Gadahn's “Invitation to Islam. He stated ominously, "To the American people and the people of the West in general ... Allah sent his Prophet Muhammad with guidance and the religion of truth ... and sent him as a herald."
If Spencer is correct, then this call to 'accept Islam or face attack':

1. is a warning--unlike 9/11. How would Al Qaeda explain that--Practice?
2. amounts to 'convert or die'--what about "there is no coercion in religion." Religion no, Islam yes?

According to Answering Islam
S. A. Rahman makes the distinct claim:

This verse is one of the most important verses in the Qur'an, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.... [1]
Compare that with what Raphael Patai writes in The Arab Mind about
the doctrine of Din Muhammad bi'l-sayf (literally, "The religion of Muhammad with the sword"), which required all Mulsims to spread Islam by the force of arms. [p.155]
After all, Islam's massive occupation during its heyday reached as far as Russia.

Rahman does admit that some commentators minimize the area covered by the 'no compulsion' verse, and claims with a straight face:
Such an interpretation can perhaps be attributed to the unconscious pressure of orthodox tradition. [emphasis added]
Have Rahman and his fellow apologists ever heard of Al Qaeda?

Technorati Tag: and and and .

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

What Is It About Ahmadinejad and August 22?

Ahmadinejad has specified Tuesday, August 22 as the day he will give the US his answer about Iran's nuclear development.

The question is--why has Ahmadinejad picked that particular date?

A number of experts on Islam, such as Bernard Lewis and Robert Spencer have offered a possible answer. No one can know for sure, but thanks to Wikipedia, we can consider the full spectrum of possibilities. Here are some things that happened on August 22:
  • 565 - St. Columba reported seeing a monster in Loch Ness, Scotland
  • 1654 - Jacob Barsimson arrives in New Amsterdam. He is the first Jewish immigrant to what is later the United States
  • 1775 - King George III declares the American colonies to be in open rebellion
  • 1902 - Theodore Roosevelt became the first President of the United States to ride in an automobile
  • 1942 - World War II: Brazil declares war on the Axis powers (Germany, Italy and Japan)
  • 1969 - Elvis Presley begins performing live again in Las Vegas
  • 1979 - Led Zeppelin released their album, In Through The Out Door.
  • 1989 - Nolan Ryan strikes out Rickey Henderson to become the first Major League Baseball pitcher to record 5000 strikeouts.
Who can truly the pierce the unscrutable mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made up its mind, and on the nuclear program and other issues it is up against it will continue powerfully on its path, putting its faith in God and with patience and perseverance, and it will obtain its sweet fruit".
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, state television, 21 August 2006

Update:
Pajamas Media notes
The date is significant not only to Islam followers, but also to Crusading Christians: “On August 22, 725 AD, the Bishop of Nantes became the martyred St. Emilian while leading the French against the invading muslims.”
Since Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, it is doubtful he will own up to the history of Moslems as one of the great occupying armies of all time.

Technorati Tag: and and .

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Muslims Seek Ban Of Jewish Holidays

That's the headline in an article appearing in North County News.

The facts of the situation seem to boil down to these:
A Muslim group is demanding that the Baltimore County school system remove Jewish holidays from the 2006-07 school calendar.

The demand comes after a nearly three-year battle between the Baltimore Muslim Council and the school system over adding two Islamic holy days, Id al-Fitre and Id al-Adha, to the school calendar.
Next school year's calendar, proposed May 10 and due to be voted on by the school board June 13, does not include the two holy days. But the calendar does list the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, meaning schools are closed those days.

Dr. Bash Pharoan, president of the Muslim council, said it is not fair for the county to recognize one religion while ignoring others. He said if the school board does not vote to allow the two Muslim holidays, then the Jewish holidays should be dropped.

"This issue is about equality, about equity," he said.
Apparently there are 2 ways of looking at Pharoan's statements--as a threat or a request for equal treatment.

The former view is shared by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch:
This is not an issue of equality. This is an issue of the dominant culture being made to submit to the demands of a tiny minority. The Jewish presence in America has always been significant; Muslim presence has been nil until recently, despite fantasies about Columbus' crew seeing minarets as they approached the New World. This is an attempt at cultural strong-arming and intimidation, and should be resisted as such.
On the other side is Jewish Times in an article from June 2005:
Rabbi Mark G. Loeb, of Pikesville's Beth El Congregation, agreed. The number of Muslims - comparable to that of Jews in America, if not exceeding it - deserve recognition of their holidays.

"I think if we are a pluralistic community, we ought to honor everybody," Rabbi Loeb said. "It's a matter of showing respect. They're asking for two days. It wouldn't be so hard to [give] two days out of the calendar."
So what is the reason for not adding two Islamic holidays to the school calendar? The Jewish Times quotes Rabbi Rex D. Perlmeter, of Baltimore Hebrew Congregation, who claims the issue is one of practicality:
"If Baltimore County schools didn't close on the Jewish holidays, there would be a substantial impact on classroom attendance and disruption of academic flow," he said. "But I don't know whether the statistics [of Muslims in Baltimore County] would bear out the closing of schools. That's the critical question."
But North County News, quotes Arthur Abramson, executive director of the Baltimore Jewish Council, who says the issue is money: the reason for adding the Jewish holidays to the schedule is that it was too costly to hire the substitutes to fill in for the observant Jewish teachers-- and the school would add the Muslim holidays when the county had more Muslim teachers and students.

However, the same article also notes, that according to the schools' Web site, the pay for a substitute teacher starts at $59.66 and goes as high as $103.05. Just how much of a financial burden is Abramson talking about?

That seems to sum up most of the issues.

What do you think?

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

If It's True, Is It Still Hate?

If someone knowingly and falsely accuses a particular Moslem or Moslem group of having terrorist ties, that is spreading hate; but if the charge is true, then that is not hateful--it's a fact, and should be enough to put someone in jail or get them deported from the country.

But how well is the case being made when accusing Moslems of terrorist ties. After all, just last month Sami Al-Arian was acquited on charges he provided support for terrorists.

Take a much smaller case in Florida.

In an article in the St. Petersburg Times, "Are bloggers against hate, or feeding it?", S. I. Rosenbaum sets out to discredit Joe Kaufman and other bloggers whose writing apparently led to the moving of a Muslim retreat. The tone to the direction the article will take is in the sub-title:
Blogs dedicated to protecting America against terrorism are troubling the Muslim community.
That's the theme that runs through the article: the pomposity of the blogs and the persecution of the Moslem community.

From the beginning the focus is on the bloggers, starting with the surreal start of her piece:
It's 4 a.m. Somewhere near Coral Springs, Joe Kaufman is still at his computer.

Blurry with fatigue, he types:

It has been said that 80 percent of all the mosques ... inside the United States are ... tied to a radical form of Islam. ...

One of the American locations that ... influence has been prevalent is the Tampa-St. Pete area of Southwest Florida.

Kaufman is 35, clean-shaven, a lawyer's assistant. He goes inline skating and writes love songs on guitar. But his passion is his Web site, AmericansAgainstHate.com, where he monitors the activities of Florida's Muslim community, looking for terrorist links.

Kaufman's site is only one of a constellation of blogs with names like JihadWatch.com, MilitantIslamMonitor.org, and WesternResistance.com that are dedicated to the surveillance of American Muslims. The blogs link to one another, with more-traveled sites amplifying stories from more obscure ones, like Kaufman's.

He claims he has not found a single mosque in Florida that is not linked to terrorists.
The opening paragraphs are more like something in a novel than a newspaper. S. I. Rosenbaum doesn't address the threat of Islamist terrorism in the US, neither does she at any point in her article address whether any of Kaufman's claims are true--what little she mentions of them.

In fact, when she writes about the retreat having to move, there is not a word about the charges that Kaufman and others have made:
Jennifer Valko opened her e-mail and saw a message of hate.

I will undress you paint your body with pig fat & light you. America is on to you! Watch your back!

It was the Thursday after Christmas. In two days, the Muslim spiritual retreat she had helped plan was scheduled to take place at Cedarkirk, a Presbyterian camp and conference center in eastern Hillsborough County.

That morning, Kaufman had appeared on Fox News to talk about the retreat.

On his Web site, he had posted articles about it. He posted computer-altered images of masked terrorists standing in front of the Lithia campsite.

He said these images were meant to be "tongue in cheek." But some readers took them seriously. Hate mail and death threats poured in to the Tampa Muslim American Society.

The conference center's director also got death threats and closed the center for the weekend, forcing the retreat elsewhere.

Kaufman called the threats "disgusting," saying he gets death threats because of his blog.

"I know what I went through growing up, and it was never my intention to cause any type of hatred against anyone."

But he added, "I can't let it stop me from what I'm doing. ... I'm assisting in the safety and security of the American people."

By the time she is finished, Rosenbaum has pretty much discredited Kaufman and has painted the Moslem community as sympathetic victims.

To find out what Kaufman actually was saying about the retreat, you have to go to his article, A New Year’s Jihad Retreat. Written on December 29th of last year when the retreat was still in the works, Kaufman writes about the MAS (Muslim American Society)-sponsored retreat and the planned speakers. MAS, along with ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) "have held conferences featuring speakers accused of terror ties and have published material supporting suicide bombings against Israel" according to the Daily News.

One featured speaker at the retreat, he writes, was to be former President of MAS-Chicago, Chantal Carnes, who has praised Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the violent Muslim Brotherhood and about whom former federal prosecutor John Loftus has written was a big fan of Hitler. Kaufman also quotes Daniel Pipes, who writes that:
the Muslim American Society is the U.S. face of the Muslim Brotherhood – the single leading Islamist organization worldwide and, as I noted in "The Islamic States of America?" the MAS is not terribly subtle about its intention of "establishing an Islamic state" to replace the existing Constitutional order. Add to this the Muslim Brotherhood's six-decade history of resorting to violence...
Kaufman writes also of another scheduled speaker, Mazen Mokhtar:
Mokhtar is the Youth Division Head of MAS-New Jersey and the Khateeb (sermon-giver) of Masjid Al-Huda and the Institute of Islamic Studies. Mokhtar is also associated with the terrorist group Al-Qaeda.

In August of 2004, shortly before he was to speak at a Young Muslims camp in Pennsylvania (‘A Few Good Men’), the U.S. government accused Mokhtar of assisting Al-Qaeda through the use of a web site he had created.
Looks like powerful stuff--facts that Rosenbaum ignores. But in two previous articles, Rosenbaum does deal briefly with some of the issues. On December 31 she writes:

In fact, federal agents searched Mokhtar's New Jersey home in 2004, after a man in London was arrested for using a Web site to fund terrorist groups.

An identical Web site was registered under Mokhtar's name. But he was never arrested.

On Friday, Mokhtar, a computer programmer, said he ran a business selling server space to host Web sites. He never knew what was contained on the site in question, he said.

On his Fox News program, Cavuto also read what he said was a quote from Mokhtar: "Suicide bombing should be encouraged because it's an effective way of attacking the enemy."

Although Cavuto did not say where the quote was from, a 1996 post on the online discussion forum Usenet, signed with Mokhtar's name, contains the words "effective method of attacking the enemy" in a discussion of whether suicide bombing is prohibited by Islamic law.

Mokhtar said Friday that he did not remember writing those words.

There goes Kaufman's case against Mokhtar. Instead of being "associated with the terrorist group Al-Qaeda," we have a man investigated and never formally accused. If there is more to the case against Mokhtar than that, Kaufman doesn't mention it

In Carnes' case it's even easier. On January 1 all Rosenbaum had to do was write:
Chantal Carnes didn't recognize herself.

A friend had e-mailed her a blogger's article. It described Carnes as a supporter of terrorists, a fan of suicide bombing.
Clearly Rosenbaum does not demolish all of the details of all the points that the blogs have been raising, nor does she even address them all--for instance she cheats her readers by mentioning CAIR, but not informing them that 3 members have been found guilty of terrorist ties, as Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, who is also quoted by Rosenbaum, points out. She does not mention that CAIR has been named as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit going back to 9-11 (see update at bottom of that page).

But if charges are going to be made by bloggers on the Internet, they had better be more than mere statements about individuals admiring Hamas or being investigated (not accused), but never charged. Arafat's legacy to the 21st century is not only the creation of the mythos of the "Palestinian People," the confusion between between terrorists and freedom-fighters. We need to be more solid in the claims that we make, otherwise we will see alot more articles like S. I. Rosenbaum's.

Technorati Tag: .