Supremario-mohamed not so ‘super’ after all.
On a post published yesterday on Robert Spencer’s (@ Jihad Watch) take down of Adam Walker, I received a comment from someone named ”Supermario” who insisted that Spencer ”got it all wrong” in his debunking of the myth that Islamic State is misinterpreting the koran’s condoning of violence. I will only give the first portion of Supermario’s argument to set up the case, and the comment (in full) that greeted me this morning by Pete, which is simply devastating and should be copied and used by all who debate Muslims defending their ideology.
Supermario: Spencer is sorely mistaken in his argument re: context dependent/independent. It’s absolutely a valid interpretation. For people’s reference the arabic words used are ‘mohkam’ & ‘mutashabihat’. Mohkam is translated in the article as context independent, and mutashabihat is translated as context-dependent. Spencer has quoted translated it as mohkam= specific, mutashabihat= unspecific. Just so we’re clear on definitions. References for dictionary are from Aqrab, Lane, and Mufradat.
Spencer is saying that the mohkam and mutashabihat have no mention of context. Whilst things being context dependent/independent is indeed a limited translation of the verse, it is doubtless a valid interpretation. Mohkam, among other meanings, is defined as “that in which there is no ambiguity or possibiliy of doubt, that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition.” Mutashabihat means, among other things, “that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed mohkam.”
Pete: The lengths they’ll go to in the attempt to persuade us that the koran doesn’t say what it says are amazing, aren’t they? The koran itself states that the most obvious, literal meaning of a verse is the true one.
Incidentally, referring to the abrogation principle is an excellent weapon in debate with Muslims and apologists. Most Muslims I’ve debated weren’t aware of it (for good reason — imams don’t like to teach it) at all. I referred them to a good link or two on the topic, and never heard from them again.
Even without our resort to the abrogation principle, Superumario’s argument is defective on its own merits. The point of all this is that it is specifically the unambiguous, open-ended “mohkam” fighting verses that Westerners have a problem with. Superumario’s argument founders in that he makes the blanket claim that the act of focusing on a discrete specific / context-independent fighting verse somehow automatically makes that verse unspecific / context-dependent.
He does not explain how this occurs. And no one is “ripping the fighting verses out of context”, because we are speaking here of specific /context-independent fighting verses which, by definition, have no context from which they can be “taken out of”, other than Islam itself.
To boil his argument down to its essential form, Superumario is declaring that NONE of the fighting verses, open-ended or otherwise, can be understood without referring to the closed, specific fighting verses. This is simply not true. It denies both the koran’s own instructions on interpreting a verse (i.e., that the most obvious meaning of a verse is the true one), and the fact that most koranic verses are open-ended and contextless, i.e., intended for all people of all times. IOW, Superumario’s argument violates both the letter and the spirit of the koran.
Excellent!