The House of David

"dawnbreak in the west"

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Where CAIR's opinion is false

I'll start with the Hanbali document's preamble:

  • 8- Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct. - ... unless a caliph has ordered a jihad to unite the umma, or to smite unbelievers and heretics. The objection is at one with the objection to Baghdadi as caliph.
  • 10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’. This assumes that they have paid the jizya being subjugated (sura 9) - which the Christians in the caliphate had done, I recall. Then there were repeated shakedowns; the Christians then figured they had no protection, and they fled. So far, so good for CAIR. Still. The caliph might justify this much, by saying he felt an internal threat from them. Similar justifications have been raised by Muslim tyrants throughout history under - by an irony, noted below right here - of the fiqh al-waq’i, the rite of expediency. Not all those tyrants were expelled from the umma. Muhammad himself was not. Neither was Umar when he kicked the Jews out from Khaybar.
  • 11- It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture. - This is the first I've heard of this. Yazidis have been considered heretics or pagans since they were first detected. There's some argument for classing them as Magians later on but, I'm not buying it and Magians were themselves usually considered not kitabis over their history.
  • 20- It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions. - so the Sauds and the Wahhabiya were and are sinners, then? I doubt this.

I'm not seeing much here, from this admittedly cursory look, with which an honest Muslim could agree. It looks like wishful thinking from over here.

Then there's this happy horsesh!t:

And while Islam spread politically from Central Asia (Khurasan) to North Africa due to Islamic conquests, the majority of the inhabitants of these lands remained Christian for hundreds of years until some of them gradually accepted Islam through gentle invitation, and not through severity and coercion. Indeed large countries and entire provinces became Muslim without conquest but through invitation (da’wah), such as: Indonesia; Malaysia; West and East Africa, and others. Hence, severity is neither a measure of piety nor a choice for the spread of Islam.

First off, the conquests themselves weren't peaceful. Second off, yo, the tyranny of al-Hajjaj and others who made it impossible to survive as a Christian.

And millions of happy Arabs of zanji origin were unavailable for comment, their ancestors being dead from kidnap and overwork before those could breed. By contrast, by the way, with certain other customers of the Trade. Pro-tip? If the Muslims're making pro-South AmRen-linkers like myself look good in comparison, then they're doing it wrong.

UPDATE 9:20 PM: I have actually read Spencer's own "fisking", now. Let's go through it.

He'd caught #8 too. Also, more cursorily, he'd caught #10: to which he brings the contradictions inherent in #5 on expediency; and #11. He also explicitly noted #12 - that Islam prohibits slavery by way of phasing it out - as crap. #13 is also crap and he applies its nullity back to #10. For #20, he brings a sahih hadith, to which I'd brought modern Sunnite practice (which, I have to assume, was based on that hadith).


posted by Zimri on 20:11 | link | 0 comments

On this site




Sophia



Politics



Random crap

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of author; All Rights Reserved