Fish. Barrel. [BLAM!]
Matoko nails Robert Spencer to the wall. In her comments, an idiot comes along with more condescending Islamophobic stupidity of course.
The Spencer schtick is as old as prostitution: take a bunch of facile, juvenile interpretations of another person’s words in order to make them look bad, and that you know your audience will love you for.
Heck, half the bad blogs out there work that way. It’s the same was what White Supremacists do when they attack Jews who try to quote this or that scripture or doctrinal point. It’s ridiculous, and even arguing with them gives them more credibility than it deserves. Sadly, it has an audience in this day and age.
The first issue of JAFI Watch should appear on Monday, by the way. Spencer won’t be appearing in it but I have no doubt he’ll be making future appearances. The man gives hawks AND theologians a bad name.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
20 comments
The really amusing part: as I understand it, Muslims only use Arabic versions of the Koran specifically to avoid this sort of translation error.
Robert Spencer is certainly free to offer his interpretation of Islam, and I, of course, am free to see his main theme as the reductive, pseudo-intellectual drivel that it is. I say let the man speak. He does more to discredit his own arguments that way than any name calling on your part.
ha ha, the sweet part is i betcha he used the bad translation of al-insan al-kamil in his new book, The Truth About Muhammed!
his translation is WRONG.
bwahahahaha!
and mal, frontpage online is raising 180,000 bucks for him to run jihad watch. they should buy him the rosetta stone for arabic instead!
no way does al-insan al-kamil mean “the perfect man”.
Adam is al-insan al-kamil in the Qur’an and he wasn’t perfect. he ate the apple, in the Bible and in the Qur’an.
if spencer’s argument is correct, and muslims are chopping heads because Muhammed is al-insan al-kamil then muslims should also emulate Adam and go without much clothes. =)
no, it means “the complete human”, the finished human.
…the full human, the human that knows the names of god.
and, spencer can’t argue context, because he insists that the Qur’an is immutable. al-insan al-kamil always means the same thing.
shukran jazeelhan for posting this dean.
i hope everyone sees it.
Hrm. If it means complete *in the sense that Adam was complete*, then we are talking a different kettle of fish, so I’ll give you that one.
But it wouldn’t be possible to emulate that, and indeed it would be impossible for Muhammed to be complete in the same sense that Adam was. At least from the Judaic POV.
Aside from the fact that Adam became altered - and was thus no longer complete in that sense - and aside from the fact that all of his heirs [us] inherited that altered state, Adam’s ‘completeness’ was to have served a particular redemptory purpose which he failed to do [the apple bit] thus dooming us to all this misery and death we have today.
If Muhammed was indeed complete in that same way, he therefore failed in his redemptive purpose. Sorry, but that’s the logic of it.
I predict that Spencer will always have a die-hard constituency but will eventually be marginalized for his indefensible views. A more moderate alternative view will arise that continues to be critical of the jihaadist’s interpretation of Islam, recognizes the diversity of interpretation within Islam, and takes the side of those interpretations that fall on the side of liberty.
In fact, I believe this scenario is much more likely to occur because of the existence of Jihad Watch than it would be without it. How is that for a strong belief in liberal society.
Mark: My answer to you is to stop trying to “debate” (as Spencer et. al. are so fond of doing) but to instead just ASK some Muslims what THEY think it means. Serious-minded Muslims who are sincere about their faith. Just as I would not ask a random Christian (of any denomination) what exactly the rite of Communion means, or ask a random Jew (of any denomination) to explain this or that odd bit of Jewish theology, so I would not just grab a random Muslim and demand that he explain some obscure bit of Islamic theology. But if I found a serious-minded one, and asked him to explain how he thought of certain doctrines, he could probably either give me a pretty good answer OR promise to ask someone more learned in his faith to explain it.
Neither Ali nor Aziz are members of the clergy, but I know them to both be serious-minded Muslims. Just as I know Ron Coleman is not a Rabbi, but he can give very good answers on most broad doctrinal points, and I know if I asked him a really difficult question he’d say “I’ll ask my rabbi and some of my friends and get back to you.”
And this gets back to a point I’ve tried to emphasize so many times: the invitation to “debate” in a context like this is not very honest. Should I, as a non-Jew, attempt to “debate” you on what your faith really means?
Indeed, should I compile a list of various scriptural and doctrinal points in Judaism, as a person hostile to Judaism, and present them to you as a mass indictment of your entire faith?
“Jimmy the Dhimmi” does this every day. So does Robert Spencer. Would you appreciate that crap? I don’t think you would. I can make Judaism look pretty frakking evil if I want to. It wouldn’t even be hard. Indeed, I could hit you with all kinds of bizarro arguments about your faith that you had no idea what to do with (please believe me, I could). But I don’t, and wouldn’t. Can you cut others the same slack?
In fact, beyond just inviting you to read some Muslim bloggers (and I’ve done that plenty, and pointed to many) I’ve even invited two very different Muslims to be co-bloggers on Dean’s World. Not that their job is to be “resident Muslims” but I know them to be serious-minded men of faith. And you know what? On faith matters, they actually disagree with each other on a lot of things. Roughly speaking, I know them to be about as different from each other as Roman Catholics and Presbyterians are among Christians, or as different from Conservative Jews vs. Orthodox Jews. The analogy is imperfect but they’re about as different from each other as that. So your challenge is: ASK THEM. Don’t try to debate them, just ASK THEM. They’re people, very human people, very imperfect and fallible people. So just ASK THEM.
If you’re wanting a “debate” you’ve already lost. This isn’t any damned debate. It’s an opportunity for discussion and dialogue. TALK TO THEM!
And you don’t have to restrict yourself there. See the “Carnival of Brass” on the Dean’s World right sidebar, and trying talking to some of them too. Damn it. It ain’t that hard.
In fact, here’s the dirty little secret:
Traditional Judaism is MUCH closer to Islam (in the eyes of most traditionalist Jews) than Christianity is. Truth. Check it out.
mal, that gives me hope.
spencer uses al-insan al-kamil to “prove” that muslim headchoppers are just mandated by their religion to faithfully emulate Muhammed as a 7th century warlord. if al-insan al-kamil is the model that provokes this behavoir, then Adam should be faithfully emulated also. After all, Adam is also a prophet in Islam. Did he chop any heads?
Spencer’s schick is sounding the Islam-alarm at 120db.
that is how he sells books.
urthshu, it is the same word.
how many times have you heard spencer insist that the Qur’an is immutable, revealed, unchangeable, consistent and not open to contextual interpretation?
according to spencer himself al-insan al-kamil cannot mean two different things in the same Qur’an.
one translation is wrong.
and it’s spencers.
Dean, I’m just responding not debating. I’m telling you what this information means to me. Your ‘dirty little secret’ isn’t a secret to me, BTW, but it’s like saying Missouri is closer to California than New York is. True enough, but it matters tremendously what road you’re on.
Whoopidee doo, Motako and Dean. You nailed it on the head. Good for you guys, you should be very proud of yourselves (I’m sure you are).
Now go out and convince the Ayatollas, Muftis, Madhabs, Sharia-advocating clerics, CAIR officials, terrorists, and the hundreds of millions of other muslims worldwide who completely disagree with your assessment.
P.S. What is the translation of uswa hasana? Shouldn’t a good muslim model their behavior towards Mohammad if he is so hasana?
jimmi, irrelevent.
Spencer’s translation is WRONG in Obsession and WRONG in The Truth About Muhammed.
Oh thank you so much for stating the obvious once again Jimmy. Oh gosh, there are Muslims who buy into the grade-school interpretations of Islam that you and Roobart Sbunsar do. My gosh, u r so smart and I r so dumb. I never thot of any of what u had to say me until you enlightened me. I wuz so wrong and you wuz so right! How dumb of me!
You do a great job of recapitulating lunatic jihadist logic and rhetoric. Hooray for you.
By the way, I just got another email from Roob. Haven’t had a chance to digest it yet. Offhand though I guess it’ll be another thing that helps him sell books and book paid speaking engagements, all of which help him keep up his income. Which, so far as I can tell, is 100% devoted to “warning” the poor stupid Westerners about “what Islam is really all about.”
The fact that he can’t name any Muslims of significance who know him personally, will stand up and call him friend, and will say they find him worthy of discussing things with, will never cross his febrile fans’ minds. Or worse, they’ll just say, “oh, there’s nothing worth discussing here, Roob is right about it all! He wins!”
If he had even one practicing Muslim who was willing to publicly befriend him he’d maybe be worth a shit. Otherwise he’s just another charlatan on the right-wing chitlin circuit throwing out raw meat to the faithful to help pay his income.
Oh, and if I’ve got you wrong, Roob? Go ahead and send me a private email–an email I pledge never to publicly reprint–telling me why you think I’ve got you totally wrong and why you really do seek dialogue with Muslims and not merely “debate.” Explain to me why you think you have items worthy of discussion and why you really want to dialogue with faithful Muslims about the things you find disturbing in their faith, to seek greater understanding.
The Pope seeks no more and no less. Do you? Or do you merely seek facile “debate?”
Here’s what I predict for you, Roob: you will die alone, unmourned and unloved. And in your last moments on Earth, if you have any conscience at all, you will wonder if your whole purpose on Earth wasn’t just to serve as a warning for others about the dangers of hatemongering and rampant stupidity.
You think I’ve got you wrong? Send me a private email that neither of us will ever reprint under any circumstances. Tell me I how got you wrong, and why I got you wrong.
Otherwise, it’s all between you and your Saviour.
There are a number of Muslims in the world who agree with Spencer’s interpretation of Islam. Those that use this interpretation to further the cause of the ideology we are at war with are our enemies and must be unquestionably defeated.
For someone to say that this interpretation of Islam is the only way forward says more about the one speaking than it does about Islam. It says that you are prey to reductionist theories, which, in a way, is understandable because the world is such a complex and scary place. It probably feels comforting to have a solution that seems to make so much sense, not to mention, how much smarter you must feel than all of those that just can’t grasp the inherent logic of your position.
This just won’t do. We have been drawn into a battle between opposing interpretations of Islam. Even if you think the “moderate” side is a small number, what sense does it make to voluntarily increase the size of your enemy? Not much unless you are at core a defeatist who is more interested in proving yourself right than in actually winning the war.
So start a new thread about how Muslims like the Grand Ayatolla Ali Hossaini Khamenei interpret the meaning of al-insan al-kamil, or uswa hasana. I’m curious to know your views on the relevance of their opinions.
Or do you think Robert Spencer has more authority regarding Islamic theology than the Grand-Muftis of every major city in the Muslim world? Once you’ve rebuked Spencer’s opinion the issue is settled? I had no idea blogs were such a major factor in establishing theology within Muslim tradition.
[snrk]
Got any personal friends who are Muslims who are willing to stand up and call you friend after reading what you have to say, Jimmy?
Can you name them? Will any of them stand up publicly and call you friend?
Come on Jimmy. I know you can.
Dean, I admire your attempt to engage in intelligent discussion about Islam. However your shrill and nasty tone when it comes to Robert Spencer belittles you not him. You are better than that Dean.
I notice that in a post below I asked two questions which no one bothered to answer: does anyone believe that the experience of Muslim-Anglo relations in the UK &the US is different? (We know its far different in places like France and other parts of Europe.) It is true that Muslims in the US seem to be far more assimilated than they are in the UK.
Do you think you lot might not be possible if you were near or lost someone in an Islamist attack in your city or town you might be less charitable?
I don’t get how Matoko’s post is nailing anything to the wall. Matoko asserts that Spencers translation is wrong based upon a translation she got from an unknown commenter. I’m sorry, but that hardly strikes me as definitive.
I don’t claim to know arabic. I certainly don’t know the Quran well enough to make any claims on what it says, although I have read an english translation of it.
I do know enough about other languages to assert that it is possible for one person to translate a term as ‘complete’ and another to tranlate it as ‘perfect’ and for them both to be correct.
If we want to talk about facile, juvenile interpretations of anothers words to make that person look bad, I expect that many of us are guilty of that sin. Certainly Dean and Matoko haven’t been above it either in the past or in this current posting.
From the larger perspective, I don’t think it is arguable that Muslims revere Mohammad and try to emulate him. I also don’t think it arguable that some Muslims, including some that are respected relious authorities, use Mohammad and the Koran to justify violence that most of us, including a lot of Muslims, find absolutely unjustifiable.
Certainly it is also obvious that the Koran can be used to justify violent, repugnant acts. The Bible and the Torah can as well, as can the Communist Manifesto. That is blindingly obvious. The difference though is how often this is being done. Islam seems to be being used in this fashion currently with distressing frequency. That makes it an issue very different from the others.
I have still never understood the point to Dean’s ‘Islamophobic’ arguements (let alone Matoko’s bizarre ramblings.) Is it wrong to make any criticisms of Islam? Is it wrong to criticize any Muslims? What is the behavior he condemns that is so horrible, and why is it so horrible?
I earnestly want to understand the nature of this conflict, it all its dimensions. It is clearly complex and contains religous as well as non-religious ideas. I think trying to understand why and how some Muslims use their religion as justification is quite useful. Dean seems to assert though that we should just take the word of Muslims who are not violent that their religion doesn’t condone such things, regardless of how often it is used to do just that, and how many Muslims see to agree.
The point that all of you are missing is that Muslims such as the Ayatolla, the Muftis, the Madhabs ect…actually agree with Spencer’s description of Islam, though they do not think such description is pejorative.
These guys are the ones with the power to motivate terrorists and middle-east governments in order to kill countless innocent people in the name of Islam. That is why Spencer’s understanding of Islam is important…because it is OBL and Ahmadinajad’s understanding.
If this fact is ignored by moderate muslims who quietly, subconsciously reject such orthodoxy, then the violence of Mohammad and the archaine verses of the Koran will just sit there until a terrorist-fascist personality reads them, and becomes inspired by them, with no reproach. It is also infinitely worse when all those who are respected throughout the middle-east as “scholars” or “clerics” or whatever, actually encourage such interpretation.
Nothing will ever change until eccumenincal leadership in the Muslim world addresses the archaine tradition within Islamic scripture, history and of Mohammad himself, The way the Jews have done with Tulmudic scholarship, and the Catholic church did with the counter-reformation.
I’m sorry, but Aziz, Eteraz and Esmay it doesn’t seem to me that you have the credibility to convince Muslims that you are the supreme authority on defining Islamic dogma, whereas all those robed men are not. Its easy to bash Spencer for pointing this out because you are the Grand Muftis of Blogspot, rather than Cairo.
You must log in to post a comment.