Jihad Watch proves that Eteraz's 'no death for apostasy' development is not convincing

I earlier wrote that Eteraz stated that death for Islamic apostasy has been disproven, via an examination of the Quran. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch shows that in fact Eteraz posted what amounts to a hoax of a post, and was highly deceptive. *sighs* Spencer is very convincing, sadly. "Breaking the neck" for apostasy is hardly an improvement over death for apostasy. UPDATE: Eteraz replied to Spencer's post, and then Spencer replied to the reply! Fascinating reads! But in the end, Spencer's posts hold the greater intellectual water.

Total misrepresentation on Eteraz's blog!

Earlier, I wrote about my horror at a court decision that said a Christian woman would be able to get a driver's license without having her picture taken, because she was against 'graven images.' I found out about this case on Eteraz's blog. You would think, based on what was written on the blog, that the court case was a recent one. Nope. After scouring the net for the case (not easy, given how there was no link to the decision on Eteraz's blog), I finally found the court decision. You can read it yourself. Quaring v. Peterson, 728 F.2d 1121 (8th Cir. 1984). That is right. This was decided in 1984. Let's examine 1984, shall we? This was three years before even a report came out that the WTC was a target for terrorist attacks. It was nine years prior to the 1993 bombing. It was 17 1/2 years prior to September 11, 2001. In short, this case was decided before terrorism was a concern, and the need for photo IDs was so especially significant. 1984 was also a year that computers were still not that widespread. Identity theft was only in the very beginning stages. Credit card fraud was still in its infancy. In short, all of the very real security needs for a photo ID driver's license were basically nonexistent in 1984. As such, the court case has since been distinguished and is not followed anymore. Eteraz would lead you to believe otherwise, that somehow this is a case of bigotry towards Muslims, as courts won't allow the veil, but will allow Christians to not have photo IDs. This is a complete misrepresentation of reality.

Opposing Sharia law

The Archbishop of Canterbury recently said that "Sharia law is inevitable" in the UK, and claimed that it will "bring about social cohesion." Yeah, right. He is under fire from his statement, though some have stated that somehow it is 'Islamophobic' to be against Sharia law for Muslims in the UK, because the system would be voluntary, anyway. Ali Eteraz (who I have taken issue with in the past) wrote a very compelling entry on his blog, explaining exactly why Sharia would be so terrible for Muslims. (please note that he is a practicing Muslim who wrote this) The important part to note...

2 - Islamic family and inheritance law has issues that have not been resolved.

Men get a presumption when it comes to custody (it should be an issue of best interest of child).

Child support ends after three months (it should be as in US law where children “share in the good fortunes” of their divorced parents).

Boys get more in inheritance than girls (should be equal).

Men get bulk of marital assets (should be equitable distribution).

Apostasy automatically ends the marriage (yeah, I’m sure this one won’t be abused by evil in-laws). Think of how easily Muslims accuse one another of kufr.

In a divorce, a parent revealed to be (or more likely accused to be) a homosexual has no claim over the child (”your dad’s a fag, kid, you are fatherless!”). I mean, jilted women have never been known to demonize their exes like this.

A man can divorce in one sitting but a woman needs the permission of a religious authority.

This list is endless, please feel free to add to it.

The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that

It is a maxim of fiqh: “Changes of al-ahkam (judgments) are permissible with the change in times.” I don’t see changes.

Eteraz wrote much more, but one thing I take issue with is his moral equivalence - he states that the Beth Din in England somehow would be equivalent to the Sharia courts. Firstly, Jewish law is relatively well settled, after the publishing of the Shulchan Aruch. (at least compared to Sharia law) Yes, rabbis will publish responsa to situations as they come about - but this is nothing like the confusion of Sharia. Eteraz noted it as such...

5 - There is no standardized version of Islamic law

Sharia is not codified. It can be anything based on the whim of the arbitrator. For law to be law, it needs standardization. Who is going to do this? Muhammad Fadel and Khaled Abu el Fadl? Abdullahi an-Naim? Irshad and Reza Aslan? Faraz Rabbani? Taqi Usmani and Nameless Arab Guy? Suhaib Webb and Yasir Qazi? Yale University? Harvard’s Islamic Law Symposium? Remember, we’re a community that still haven’t been able to standardize what day to start Ramadan or celebrate our biggest festivals so let’s not get too carried away with pipe dreams about standardizing Islamic family law. If codification has not even been accomplished in numerous Muslim countries then how can you even think about getting a Sharia court going in the West?

And, I assure you that if you get the standardization issue going, its quickly going to devolve into an Islamic civil war — Sufi v. Salafi v. Liberals v. Right-Wing-Islamophobes (what, you don’t think they are going to show up at the public meetings?)

So that is difference one.

Difference two is what goes to the crux of the matter. Namely, there simply is a difference in Sharia law v. Halacha (Jewish Law). Please read Hugh Fitzgerland's explanation as such. Essentially, there is a difference in the way Jewish law is viewed - certainly not as supreme over the secular laws - and the way it is applied. Moreover, there is a difference in the goal; Jews do not hope to one day rule over England with Halacha.

It is for all these reasons and more that we have to be vigilant in our fight against Sharia law. We have to remind ourselves that Sharia is not just the 'Muslim equivalent' of Halacha. It is not. Unless and until Sharia is a) reformed; b) codified, it remains the law of the dark ages. Under the aegis of 'religious tolerance,' why are we okay with letting women be treated as second class citizens? Why? Why are feminists arguing this is actually a good thing? Did the feminist movement mean nothing? Why are so many liberals acting illiberally?

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens wrote a great essay explaining the very real dangers of Sharia right here. To sum it up: allowing Sharia will mean that honor killings will go unpunished to a much larger degree. And most importantly, it will lead to oppression of women. Feminists, where are you? *taps feets* I am waiting to hear from you!

Death threat on Eteraz's blog

I would like to share with you a death threat I received on Eteraz's blog. It made me smile and my heart sing. ---- Red Tulip: You’ve just made me into a PLO supporter. I’ll stop supporting them after they get you. And, you’re living in the distant past, ’cause the PLO ain’t nothing anymore; its Hamas you need to worry about. And, despite my spite towards Islamists, I’m temporarily going to root for them to get you, too. Comment by OmarG — November 9, 2006 @ 1:18 pm Thanks, OmarG, you have made my day! I just love the sight of death threats in the morning!

Jews as apes and swines

Ali Eteraz, on his blog, tried to reconsile the following statements that are in the Qu'ran, with his own notions of acceptance and religious pluralism: 5:60

Say: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!”

2:65

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

7:166

When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

Eteraz goes on to justify this with the following:

I started with verse 5:60 in his translation. Say: “Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? They whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into apes and swine because they worshipped the powers of evil:” these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers]. The first thing I noted, that I had missed the first time around when looking at this verse, was the fact that there was no mention of Jews. “They whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned” were the ones turned into apes and swine “because they worshipped the powers of evil.” Of course, that did not mean this verse didn’t refer to Jews; oh no, it did refer to them. Except, it turned out, that this verse not only referred to Jews, but also to Christians. A subsequent pharse refers to “Men of God” and “Rabbis” - with the Men of God being a reference to Christians (especially in light of the fact that in verse 66 the Gospel is mentioned explicitly). My headache wasn’t gone, but I felt a little better. A book that did not discriminate in its epithets seemed a lot more palatable than a book that seemed to single out the most persecuted group in the history of mankind. Of course, it was not exactly a relief because now I was confronted with the fact that even more people were being referred to as descendants of apes and swine! The other two ape and swine verses were limited to Jews, but thankfully they offered a way of resolving the issue. Here is how Asad had rendered the two verses: 7:166

and then, when they disdainfully persisted in doing what they had been forbidden to do, We said unto them: “Be as apes despicable!”

2:65

for you are well aware of those from among you who profaned the Sabbath, whereupon We said unto them, “Be as apes despicable!”

That “as” I knew quite well: “So am I as the rich, whose blessed key can bring him to his sweet locked up treasure” said Shakespeare. It was the “as” — the blessed “as” — of metaphor! I rejoiced a hundred times over. A metaphor means that the finality of language is absent. Being “as” something is not the same as being something. Could it be that the Quran was engaged in metaphor-making? If references to apes and swines were metaphors, it meant that the people being referred to had expressed the qualities of an “ape” and the qualities of a “pig.” Given the fact that in classical Arabic an ape was someone impulsive and a pig was someone stubborn, the metaphors seemed almost innocous (Especially since in all languages animals are used as referrants for certain qualities. Once we could learn what qualities classical Arabic invoked when referring to those animals, we could understand what the metaphor was referring to. Before I got too excited I wanted to be certain this “as” was not a mere blip on the radar. I had too many feelings hurt to risk hurting them again. So I went and consulted another translation, this one by Shakir. 7:166

Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

2:65

And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

Granted that the other two famous English translations (Yusuf Ali and Pickthall), did not have the metaphorical “as” in them the presence of the “as” in two of the more famous translations was enough to get my mind churning, and this time I was not reliant upon any authority except that of my God given reason. Suddenly I started to see patterns in the Quran that further cast light on these questionable (and certainly questionably used) verses. First, I noticed that 2:65 was part of a flashback sequence beginning at 2:47 where the Quran was addressing the Jewish and Christian communities in the time of Muhammad and asking them to revisit their own theological histories and their relationship with God. In other words, the addressees were the Jews and Christians of that time (those alive in the life of Muhammad). This is an important distinction because the Quran treats the time during which Muhammad was alive, different than all other times. Things that were allowed, or done, during the life of Muhammad, were often not allowed, or done, after his passing. Consider: Muhammad was allowed to have nine wives, but all other Muslims can, at most, have up to four (and even there the Quran question whether one can act favorably). Muhammad was required to stay up and pray all night; all later Muslims are not so required. Muhammad was the one allowed to exact jizya from the dhimmis; after his passing the distinction was to be abolished (but sadly was not — more on this some other day). Thus, the fact that the Quran directly addressed only those Jews and Christians alive in Muhammad’s time, was significant. Then, far more astoundingly, I noticed that the sequence starting at 2:47 actually opened with the incredible assertion: “O children of Israel! Remember those blessings of Mine with which I graced you, and how I favoured you above all other people.” Pardon? This seemed to me like the clearest case of the Quran picking favorites, and the presence of verses that spoke favorably of Jews and Christians at the opening of the passage soothed me somewhat further. It more firmly established the conversational nature of the discussion in the Quran. I also recalled the hadith of the Prophet which stated that of all the Prophets, Moses was God’s favorite. At this point, I wondered whether there were other cases of “animalization” in the Quran. Whether one could truly conclude that the verses that bothered me were metaphors. While others may be aware of more, I found a couple of astounding ones. In Surah Fil, the Chapter of Elephant, in reference to an attack made upon Mecca before the birth of Muhammad, the Quran says, referring to those that fought the invading army from Yemen: 105:3

let loose upon them great swarms of flying creatures

Some Muslim commentators, the same ones that thought that ape and pig were references to literal transformation, have interpreted this verse to mean that a swarm of flying creatures, literally, were let loose upon the invaders. However, when considered in light of classical Arabic, we realize that the idea of a “great swarm of flying creatures” was a metaphor popular among the poets in the day to refer to the state of utter decimation wrought by a group of brave warriors (the metaphor was likely popular because birds (kites and vultures) often hung out near battle-fields). Another metaphor about animals was popular among poets of pre-Islamic Arabia. Although not in the Quran, this was the notion of the hamstrung camel, which was a metaphor for exile and loneliness. While the hamstrung camel does not appear in the Quran, the pregnant, kneeling, camel does (in the thirtieth Juz), and refers to a feeling of alienation. In any case, in the Chapter of the Elephant, in a non-Jewish/Christian context, the Quran had animalized a group of people (namely, the Quraysh which included the Prophet’s grandfather). This gave me further proof that the reference to apes and swines was a metaphorical representation of the qualities that certain group of historical people exhibited which were like the qualities exhibited by certain animals familiar to the Arabs and was not a suggestion that Jews or Christians were the descendants of such animals, nor was it meant to read that they were animals to this day. Under classical Arabic, anyone could be an ape (if they were stubborn) just as anyone could be a hamstrung or pregnant camel (if they were lonely).

To this I wrote the following: I think that to say that any group either ‘acts like apes’ or ‘becomes apes’ because they do not adhere to imaginery commandments given from en high is highly offensive. There is no excuse for Mohammed’s words. None. Zero. I see how you are making excuses, but I read the Koran and was gagging throughout at his moral pronouncements he made against others without even knowing Judaic or Christian law. How does he know what a good Jew is to do or a good Christian to do? And yet he says they are horrible for not being good Jews or good Christians. I would never proclaim a Muslim who does not keep Halal or who does not pray five times a day a bad Muslim. It is not for me to say. What gave Mohammed or anyone the right to make a pronouncement on the laws of another group, when he was a self professed illiterate who had only a base understanding of Judaism and Christianity? This is intolerance personified. It is not excusable. And it is rife throughout the Koran. You know this to be true. On page three of the Koran, he spoke of the Infidels. It is one of the most intolerant documents I have read. And where is the tolerance for other faiths? Through the ‘dhimmi’ laws? That is hardly tolerance. Maybe seventh century tolerance, but hardly 21st century tolerance. That does not mean that Islam cannot be reformed, but it will require excising or ignoring whole sections of the Koran. This is just a fact. This is a very difficult task for any reformer to make. Now, I know you are a tolerant person who clearly does not view Jews as apes or pigs. So how can you justify these words? ---------------- What do you think? Do Ali Eteraz's words make sense to you all, or are you not persuaded by his justification to the 'apes and pigs' quote in the Qu'ran?

True dialogue

Starting this site, I hoped to have a dialogue with those who think differently. As such, I have not been censoring opposing viewpoints (with exception, the spammer Citisucks, who refused to stop blaming literally every problem on the 'white corporate male terrorist') However, with time, I have started to wonder if a dialogue is really possible. It started with this post, and culminated with my posting on Eteraz's website. I started to see that the gulf between how I think, and how most regulars on this website think, is just so wide, that I wonder if there really is any hope of influencing those who sympathize with jihadists or make excuses for them. My question to all your culture for all regulars is...do you believe any real dialogue is possible? How do you engage in a real discussion with these people, or is it rather pointless? As was recently showcased on Shlemazl's blog, those who appear to have changed often are the same people they always were. I have noticed that it is almost as if I live in an alternate reality from these people. A perfect example of this alternate reality can be seen in the recent imam airport incident in the US. Six imams were escorted off a plane after they had disturbed passengers by praying so loudly and openly, and repeatedly praising allah. To that I say a few things. 1) It is clearly understandable, in an age of international terrorism, post-9/11, why passengers would be worried about six imams loudly praying on a plane. Any attempt to paint airplane passengers as bigoted crazies is politically correct garbage. I would be crapping my pants if I saw that on a plane, as would any person who is honest with their emotions. 2) It is clearly Islamic fundamentalism, not Christian or Jewish, that is the driving force behind airplane terrorism. The amount of Christian and Jewish terrorism is nothing compared to Islamic terrorism. Let's cut the PC bullshit already and admit that! 3) This is not to say that all or most Muslims are terrorists, though I believe the proof is in and most Muslims are antisemites. (see Pew Global Research poll, very well respected) 4) The imams in question were innocent of any designs on committing airplane terror, but not all were necessarily innocent flowers. One of them, Omar Shahin, has links to Osama Bin Laden and Hamas (via the Kind Hearts charity - linked with Hamas) 5) CAIR now wants to criminalize 'racial profiling' at airports as a result of this incident, but refuses to acknowledge the above facts. 6) Wouldn't it be more effective, in terms of getting Americans to be cool with Muslims, for CAIR and other groups to work to stop support for terrorism in mosques and madrassas? Why is that never brought up in any of these discussions? I stated before: You upset? DO SOMETHING! I am hoping there will soon be a mass movement at new Quranic, Hadith, and Sunnah interpretations. I am hoping that there will be a mass rejection of terrorism. Perhaps I am an optimist. What can be done to bridge this gulf? Of course there will be racial profiling, as long as it is generally Muslims who are committing acts of terror. (or at least, while it goes on in the name of Islam) Why is the Female Quran committee so rare? Why is there so little effort being done to reform the faith, and a great deal of effort paid to just reforming how Westerners VIEW the faith? Am I tilting at windmills? Is there any real dialogue?

Apostasy hadith revealed and disputed by Ali Eteraz

Go read about it yourself. This is genuinely good news. I know Monkey Chops is angry with me for my opinions on Islam, but when I read things like this, I do feel encouraged. It is good to see Islamic scholars determine that a hadith that calls for the death penalty for apostasy should not be followed. I only hope that this is widely followed by other Muslims and Islamic nations.

Security risks

I am against the burka (aka niqab, based on who you talk to) and believe it should be taken off when the wearer enters an airplane or other secure location, for very real security reasons. I also believe that passport photos and driver's licenses need a photo on there for identification reasons - and hence the burka/niqab should be taken off in those instances. That said, recently the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Christian woman who does not believe in being photographed (something about 'graven images') could have a driver's license without a photograph. Go read Eteraz's post about this. The reasoning of the 8th circuit is pure insanity. Free exercise of religion does not give the religious person the right to subvert a law that is nonreligious in character with a substantial secular purpose. Those who say that women in burkas should have to take off the burka when going through an airport or taking a passport photo have no case if they support the Christian woman's arguments. Both arguments are insane and both lines of reasoning are insane. This is Christofascism personified. When Christofascists behave in this manner, I start to lose the ability to distinguish them from Islamofascists. Just sad, sad, sad.