Spencer, Sina, and the Rest

[Irdaq]

I've been looking around the web, and I like to go around and look at books dealing with Islam and various sites with different viewpoints. But, recently (although I'm sure this is nothign new) I'm noticing a stronger and more organized effort at Islam bashing. There are sites like FaithFreedom.org and books by people like Robert Spencer, which simply wrap hundreds of lies together and claim it as the "truth", and their popularity is surging. Anyone who tries to proves them wrong using the Koran or Hadith is simply ridiculed, and told that they are wrong.
I don't think we should stress over what others think or say, but it does get to a point where you just want to fire back, or explain how things really are. My best bet is to lead by example and leave it in the hands of Allah, but still.
Any thoughts?

[Radiant Light]

By making it aware that there are these sites is advertising it more (I know this was not your intention) ... Many a scholars have fought with these people (In terms of debate), it may anger us but hidayah is only in the hearts of Allah, their example is such as Allah says in the Quran

"Thummum Buqmun Ummyun fahum La yarjioon"
Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).
002.018

There is not much we can do, our arguing with them is fruitless.
They had the hidayah from Allah they chose to go against it.

Despite the efforts of these people Islam is still the fastest growing religion, Allah has and always will protect the deen.

[livingshaheed]

Yes, they have been around for quite some time now, and their attacks really are nothing new. They are the same repackaged batch of goods that Orientalists have thrown out before. What is different in some cases is the likes of Ibn Warraq, Sina, etc., who 'pose' as ex-Muslims in hiding. They are even worse than the Orientalist because they dont have the honesty to really say who they are, but their agenda is clear; secularization of Islamic societies, securing Israeli interests and aligning those interests with American hegemony worldwide. They have no intellectual integrity or critical mind which at least the Orientalist for the most part had. They have been obliterated by non-Muslim Islamic scholars such as Johathan Bloom from U of Chicago and others. The fact is being an 'expert' in Islam pays! Not only financially, but in recognition from the majority of ignorants and a hearing from top government officials. They never debate real Islamic scholars.

[donsingleton]

Originally Posted by Irdaq

There are sites like FaithFreedom.org and books by people like Robert Spencer, which simply wrap hundreds of lies together and claim it as the "truth", and their popularity is surging. Anyone who tries to proves them wrong using the Koran or Hadith is simply ridiculed, and told that they are wrong.

I have not read FaithFreedom, but I have seen Robert Spencer challenge many people to a debate. If you feel you can prove him wrong on any of his claims, without ad hominum attacks, why don't you challenge him to a debate. List the things he has said that you can prove are wrong, tell him your proof, and tell him that if he will post your information on his site, you will let him address your points, and post all of it here, and that you will politely respond to his response. After a few rounds of that, published on both sites, it should be apparent whether he is telling the truth or not.

[Iklas]

Assalamualaikum,

To don, thanks for the advise. It seems to me that Spencer and others like him cherry pick verses from the Quran such as verses concerning fighting but leave out portions, usually after or before the said verses, which teach not to transgress limits or that restraint is even better. They also leave out portions which state to fight only those who fight you. Also in terms of the context of the verses, according to Muslim scholars the correct way in which to interpret the verses of the Quran is by taking into account the time, place, and circumstances under which they were revealed. They also must correctly understand the hadeeth (sayings and examples of the Prophet) and interpret them together with the Quran.

Also, people such as this claim that only Muslims are responsible for much of the world's violence. I find this quite bigoted, wars have mostly been fought for unreligious reasons such as for wealth or resources, if we speak strictly about the West we will find that war and oppression can be found throughout its history from the spread of the Holy Roman Empire to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Sectarian Conflicts of Europe and interfighting among kings, to Colonialism and two extremely destructive and disastrous world wars, not to mention the decades long cold war which killed millions and creation of nuclear arms which can potentially destroy the world.

I didn't mean to go through a history lesson but blaming Muslims for the world's problems is a blatant form of scapegoating which is far from the truth. As soon as we realize that these problems are far more complicated and everyone shares part of the blame the sooner we can begin solving them. If you look at many of the conflicts occurring in the Muslim World, you will find that most of them have roots in the inequities of colonialism from which Muslims are still struggling for true liberation and independence.
Peace and Allah Knows Best.

[donsingleton]

Originally Posted by Iklas

It seems to me that Spencer and others like him cherry pick verses from the Quran such as verses concerning fighting but leave out portions, usually after or before the said verses, which teach not to transgress limits or that restraint is even better.

Actually what he does is show that the claims made by the terrorists have a basis in the Quran and the hadeeth.

Originally Posted by Iklas

They also must correctly understand the hadeeth (sayings and examples of the Prophet) and interpret them together with the Quran.

He certainly quotes from the hadeeth. For example the terrorists use Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar 19:4294 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen....html#019.4294) to justify what they do.

If you disagree with his quotes and can show him he is wrong, include that in your polite debate.

Originally Posted by Iklas

Also, people such as this claim that only Muslims are responsible for much of the world's violence. I find this quite bigoted, wars have mostly been fought for unreligious reasons such as for wealth or resources, if we speak strictly about the West we will find that war and oppression can be found throughout its history from the spread of the Holy Roman Empire to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Sectarian Conflicts of Europe and interfighting among kings, to Colonialism and two extremely destructive and disastrous world wars, not to mention the decades long cold war which killed millions and creation of nuclear arms which can potentially destroy the world.

Christianity went through a major reformation; perhaps the same needs to happen with Islam. There are certainly millions of Muslims that are very happy living in the 21st century. But the ones blowing themselves up just to be able to kill others, and who seem to want to return to the eight century, are what people like Robert Spencer is focusing on.

Originally Posted by Iklas

If you look at many of the conflicts occurring in the Muslim World, you will find that most of them have roots in the inequities of colonialism from which Muslims are still struggling for true liberation and independence.

Actually most of them are groups that want power. As far as I know, both
Sunnis and Shias are Muslims, and Surat an-Nisa,093 (Quran 4.93, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.093) says "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him" but Sunnis seem to feel it is ok to kill Shias, and Shias seem to feel it is ok to kill Sunnis. It seems that the most important thing is for their group to have the most power.

I prefer what Jesus said in Matthew 7:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:12&version=31) So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

[donsingleton]

Originally Posted by livingshaheed

secularization of Islamic societies

What is wrong with secularization of Islamic societies? The USA has separation of church and state, and although it is a predominately Christian nation, Muslims, Jews, Buddists, Hindus, etc all are free to practice their faith. Even many Muslim countries (Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, etc) have secular governments.

[livingshaheed]

What is wrong with secularization of Islamic societies? The USA has separation of church and state, and although it is a predominately Christian nation, Muslims, Jews, Buddists, Hindus, etc all are free to practice their faith. Even many Muslim countries (Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, etc) have secular governments.

Islamic societies do not need a forced secularization of their societies; as is the stated goal of Spencer and his ilk. Systems imposed from the outside will never work. What needs to be allowed is a system to grow organically from within the peoples tradition and history.
This does not mean reject everything Western, but rather it means to engage with those aspects that are good with it and leave those that are bad. Islamic societies should not adopt a system or project which the West doesnt have confidence with itself; look at Heidegger, Derrida, Gadamer, Nietzsche if you want to know what I mean.
The biggest problem with Spencer and he has been called out on this already by individuals such as Spengler is that he picks and chooses every bad quotation he can get his hands on puts it there in his books without context and delivers it to his fans and sheep for consumption as truth. He runs away from debate, as he did against Umar Lee and when does debate, as he did against DSouza, he constantly interrupted him and attempted to sabotage him. DSouza did a good job in checking Spencer.
Spencer in the end is a pseudo-scholar, with little knowledge in Arabic or the Islamic texts and little depth in his analysis. His deep subjective and prejudicial support for Israel has made him into an affirmed enemy of Islam.
Reza Aslan has become famous for stating the obvious; Islam is going through a reforming period. Tariq Ramadan has been saying the same for years already. Reformation is something the Islamic world has been struggling with for 200 years. The idea of reformation is inherent in ISlam the reason why one hasnt seen these inherent methodoligies used is because of some reactive elements in the Muslim Umma who wished to keep the status quo and the other was that reformation and renewal (tajdid) take quite a long time. Reformation in this sense is not the same as what went on with Christianity or Judaism, in those religions reformation left them a shell of their former self.

[donsingleton]

Originally Posted by livingshaheed

Islamic societies do not need a forced secularization of their societies; as is the stated goal of Spencer and his ilk. Systems imposed from the outside will never work. What needs to be allowed is a system to grow organically from within the peoples tradition and history.

I am not aware of anone seeking to force secularization on a country. Pakistan, Thiland, and Indonesia, among others, are faced with attempts at forced theocratic rule, and some european countries are faced with Muslim immigrants that do not want to adapt to the traditions and history of their new country, but rather to impose Sharia law in it.

Originally Posted by livingshaheed

The biggest problem with Spencer and he has been called out on this already by individuals such as Spengler is that he picks and chooses every bad quotation he can get his hands on puts it there in his books without context and delivers it to his fans and sheep for consumption as truth. He runs away from debate, as he did against Umar Lee and when does debate, as he did against DSouza, he constantly interrupted him and attempted to sabotage him. DSouza did a good job in checking Spencer.

Then someone experienced, as you are, should do as I suggested, and challenge him to a written debate. You would read his site and find a post or several posts where you disagree with him, and respond to it point by point, this is called fisking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking). Then he would respond to your points, and then you to his, and you both would agree in advance to post the whole things both here and on his site.

Originally Posted by livingshaheed

Reformation in this sense is not the same as what went on with Christianity or Judaism, in those religions reformation left them a shell of their former self.

I disagree. I believe both faiths are richer than they were, and have the same relation to the creator, yet they are adapted to the 21st century. I believe Islam would benefit from a similar reformation.

[Irdaq]

But wasn't that the whole problem in the first place? If these so-called scholars were reasonable or well-informed like they should be, then they would hold fair arguments against anyone. You can't present facts to people who can simply shrug them off as lies.

As for much of the propaganda against Islam, it can orignate from a multitude sources. Islam was obviously a huge influence around the world, and there were those who sought to stop that. During the Crusades, many authors wrote books condemning Islam. The fact that these sources exist does not guarantee their accuracy.