Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Surprised We’ve Not Yet Heard from an Ayatollah?

Surprised We’ve Not Yet Heard from an Ayatollah?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Robert Spencer, Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson are among the many names in the blogopehere who have received negative comments due to their articles. It is my opinion that while bloggers such as Wolf Pangloss, World Ware, Haganah, Daniel Henninger and Pastorius report on the spread of jihadist propaganda and instructional videos on the internet, their only real success is in helping to misrepresent the true meaning of Islam.

He may not be a Muslim, but if Salman Rushdie can be the target of a fatwa for writing The Satanic Verses, then Robert Spencer may also be on the fatwa nominee list for writing what could be considered a propaganda attempt against Islam; 'Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't'.

Does Robert Spencer really expect us to pay attention to his deliberations of whether Christians are more of a threat to free societies than so-called 'Islamic jihadists', whether the Bible and the Q'ran contain violence, to consider whether the history of Christianity or Islam is more 'bloodstained', and why he believes Christianity is a religion of peace, but Islam is not. I suspect that Robert Spencer's writings on such issues will only serve to fuel Islamophobia and increase the segregation of communities and the isolation of Muslims.

In Robert Spencer's own words he's already been listed alongside Daniel Pipes, Michael Scheuer, Steven Emerson, and 'the crusader-in-chief' George W. Bush as one of the "Zionist crusader missionaries of hate and counter-Islam consultants". Robert Spencer responded to this categorisation by 'inviting' his accuser to accept the Bill of Rights on a "framework within which people of differing faiths can live in peace, harmony, and mutual respect – provided that none of the groups involved cherishes supremacist ambitions to subjugate the others". Robert Spencer's hypocrisy is not just shown by the fact that he now fails to adhere to this by slandering Islam, but also because he has transgressed the bounds of his own disclaimer by seeking to elevate his own views, ambitions and religion (Christianity) over Islam. Therefore can it now be argued that he is no different from his enemy he accuses of similar deeds, al Qaeda spokesman, Adam Yahiye Gadahn?

It maybe argued that Robert Spencer's only success here is conning his followers into paying $18.45 to read what may be found to be misrepresentations of Islam, distortions of Islamic text and use of fallible hadiths to argue a flawed concept. No matter how much he tries to put his arguments across, his ideas appear contradictory because we all know that Christianity has it's own problems with radicalism, fundamentalism, terrorism and rogue affiliates; just as we know that the bible makes reference to war and uses violent parables. Then there's the history of Christian atrocities to be considered!

What Robert Spencer and his supporters (found here, here and here) fail to report on is the fact that the assimilation of Muslims in America is positive, the threat by Muslims in Europe is very limited, and that it is increasingly becoming evident that Muslims say no to violence, terrorism & bin Laden. Therefore one would be wrong to argue that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Let’s be clear about a few things; I HAVE recently returned from the Middle-East and I AM promoting Jihad. However, the Jihad I promote is not the Jihad of twisted lunatics whose life ambition is to strap on bombs to kill innocent people on trains and planes, or of those who seek to distort religious teachings to encourage such behaviour. We only need to read the opinions of mainstream Islamic scholars to understand the true meaning of Jihad and Islam.

The Jihad of us all is to teach ourselves and our communities in order to improve ourselves and communities. Jihad comes from the root word “al-jahd” (meaning exertion or struggle) and means that one fully exerts himself and struggles with himself to serve his Lord, as well as to perfect his interaction with others. This is the general and comprehensive meaning of jihad. Islam is the faith of peace and harmony and requires submission to the Will of Allah. As these meanings have been distorted by media pundits and politicians alike, the challenge of the Muslim commnunity is to develop a new vision of Islam, which includes continuing to educate ourselves to understand and promote the idea that the crimes of others are no justification for indiscriminate violence by non-Muslims or Muslims. Maybe then the long line of candidates seeking to secure fame and fortune through slandering Muslims, misrepresenting Islamic texts and serving disunity will end. Britain's new Prime Minister Gordon Brown is a leader in the way forward by banning ministers from using the term "Muslim" in connection with the terrorism crisis.

Powered by

About KS

  • http://radicalmuslim.blogsome.com/ jamal

    I should have added that taking into account the above points alongside the history of Christian atrocities and its legacy, from which the world still suffers, therefore, for Robert Spencer to title a book Religion of Peace:‘Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t’ and attempt to argue the said concept, is just downright silly.

    The way forward is unity and while we must label and punish those that transgress, we must stop labeling entire groups because of the actions of a few.

  • Nancy

    I have to agree with you, Jamal, that Christianity has throughout most of its long history most assuredly NOT been a “religion of peace” – in fact, far from it.

    However, having read both the Qu’ran & Hadith, pus numerous commentaries on both by Muslim religious experts, I also can’t see how anyone can claim Islam qualifies as a religion of “peace”, either, since the Qu’ran is shot throughout with harangues & threats specifically against Christians & Jews, not to mention those who are NOT ‘people of The Book’ on whom it basically declares Open Season at any time, any place, any where, for any reason.

    Of course, there is a difference between the religions as they were preached, & the very imperfect human beings who have claimed to practice them both. Gandhi once said Christianity was an excellent idea – if only someone would actually practice it. IMO both religions are towering examples of intolerance, bigotry, & violence against any who don’t fall in with their specific dogmas, as demonstrated amply by BOTH their sorry, sordid histories. As far as I can determine, the only religions that can qualify as religions of peace are Quaker Christianity, some Buddhist sects, some forms of Hinduism, & Taoists. All the rest need not apply.

    Mind you, I am indeed very aware of passages such as Yunus 10, Juz 11, Sect. 10 (99-103), admonishing against forcible conversion of anyone to Islam, which would indeed support your contention. Also that the term “Muslim” throughout would seem to be used in the sense of any good believer in God who keeps the commandments of the books (bible or qu’ran), so that it applies to good Christians & Jews, not just followers of Mohammed. At least, so I was told. If I’m wrong on that score, please advise me. Thanks.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Stopped by your blog site again, Jamal.

    You’re still blogging for “Palestine,” still hustling a “world without Zionism” and still hustling boycotts of Israel. You can jabber on all you want about peace and peaceful jihad – actions speak louder than words, Jamal, and your ads do all the talking for you – you put those ads there, not Google or Yahoo.

    Looks to me like you want war. Whether you want it in the name of jihad or not is not my problem.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, I don’t agree with Jamal’s point of view any more than I agree with yours, probably even less, but aren’t you also someone who wants war?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chris,

    I don’t talk out of both sides of my mouth, Chris. I’m straight up with my views. I tell you right up front that I think the Jewish entity needs to go to war – even if I recognize that this is not likely under this régime.

    Finally, since I suspect you are able to access them a bit more easily than I, please go through my comments – all 4,800 of them – and show me where I have called the religion of Israel a religion of peace…

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    I’m not really interested in which side of your mouth you talk out of, Ruvy, nor which end of your body. My point is that extremist Jews and extremist Muslims are alike in wanting the same pointless and ultimately self-defeating thing.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “I’m not really interested in which side of your mouth you talk out of, Ruvy, … My point is that extremist Jews and extremist Muslims are alike in wanting the same pointless and ultimately self-defeating thing.”

    When you recognize my point – that I’m honest and not a liar – I’ll recognize your point. Till then, it is a waste of bandwidth to bother discussing anything with you.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, if by honest, you mean that you genuinely believe what you are saying, then yes, you are honest. Of course, that doesn’t mean you’re right…

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Apparently, Chris, you at least concede that I do not speak with a forked tongue. I’m not concerned about the rectitude of my ideas here, but of the fundamental dishonesty of Jamal’s.

  • Nancy

    Interesting that both Arabs & Jews & most middle easterners are all semitics. And like most big, too-interbred, too-prolific families, they hate each other & plot to cut each others’ throats over limited & scarcening resources & ancient grudges long brooded over & carefully nurtured. I’m coming to the conclusion they all deserve each other. So…let’s leave & let them have at each other. Maybe they’ll ALL wipe each other out & there will indeed be peace in the middle east, eh? Then the Chinese can move in & take over, I suppose….

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    If you really want peace in the Middle East, Nancy, get your soldiers, your money and your interfering diplomats the hell out. We Semites don’t need Americans or Europeans to solve our problems for us…

  • Nancy

    I’m all for it. Somebody put a bullet thru BushCo, or get congress to get a spine & impeach & remove the bastards so we can get our troops home, put a stop to the open faucet of US monies draining into the middle east as a whole, & let them all settle their own hash. It’s not as if they aren’t adults and/or self-governing nations. The only things I want from the middle east are the cultural stuff, not political hegemony. The cuisines, the costumes, the jewelry, the music, the art. All the rest can stay there – including the religions.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    And of course, it’s only about what concerns you, Ruvy. Sure.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    And, there’s the little problem for the rest of world of the oil being there.

    I see no solution to terrorism, bombs, and killing in advocating more terrorism, bombs, and killing.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Nancy, if only it was possible to take only the good without the bad, but as is being demonstrated daily in Europe, it comes as a package. You want the cheap labor, you get the uneducated religiously volatile masses that come with it.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Who said I advocate cheap labor? I always thought I supported paying people a decent wage, & hanging the greedy, overpaid, thieving CEOs. But economics aside, I’ve never supported religiously volatile ignorant masses – of anything, anywhere, any creed. Also, I consider “religion” & “ignorance” to be synonymous. Organized religion, that is, which is just organized crime, imo. Disorganized religion, now, is another matter ….

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Let’s all go hip hip hurray for the religion of peace, Jamal. Those peace-loving “Palestinians” – the South Syrian Arabs, have chosen to honor the murderer of six Jews at a Hadera bat mitzva in 2002.

    My oh my, bless their peace-loving hearts! When you “blog for Palestine”, you blog for war, Jamal. The day will come when you get what you blog for…

  • http://radicalmuslim.blogsome.com/ Jamal

    I’m a bit disappointed here that the comments began well and then petered off into Jew Vs Muslim rubbish. This was not the purpose of the article,and no, not all Muslims or Jews want to kill each other.

    Nevertheless, this exemplifies the effect that works such as that described above have. The author uses peaceful verses/acts in Christianity, but avoids the many violent ones. Based on the historic and modern violent acts related to Christianity, his title and aim of the book is nullified. Additionally, he is selective in parts of strong hadiths he uses, but fails to use the ‘peaceful’ elements/sections of the very same hadiths which show Islam as peaceful.

    We as people have to avoid doing this and acknowledge that religions will have BOTH good and bad historical and political backgrounds.

  • http://radicalmuslim.blogsome.com/ jamal

    This article on Robert Spencer (blog version) has been getting a number of Google hit’s. For those wanting to know more about this enemy of Islam, I recently posted links (click below) to very informative articles about “Robert Spencer and why he hates Islam and Muslims and why he writes that maniacs like Bin Laden are using the correct interpretation of Islam and anyone who disagrees with him is a maniac that supports terror. After reading this site, one can only become convinced that this man is a hate monger that wants all of us dead.”

    Refuting Robert Spencer