Not only in his piece on Walker’s article at the Independent, he takes him to the woodshed and back in a very lively twitter exchange.
.@AdamWalkerGB @Plowhisper @JeanRespendial @Fattboy26 The man who refuses to debate says I have no answer. Islamic supremacist chutzpah.
— Robert Spencer (@jihadwatchRS) March 10, 2015
UK’s Independent: “Are peaceful Muslims in denial about their religion?”
As I have often noted lately, the Western intelligentsia is very, very anxious to make sure that you have a positive view of Islam. Thus we see a steady stream of articles in the mainstream media assuring you that the Qur’an is benign, the U.S. Constitution is Sharia-compliant, and the Islamic State is not Islamic. There are so many of these articles because there have to be: they are asking non-Muslims to disregard what they see every day — Muslims committing violence against non-Muslims and justifying it by referring to Islamic texts — and instead embrace a fictional construct: Islam the religion of peace and tolerance.
This takes a relentless barrage of propaganda, because with every new jihad atrocity, reality threatens to break through. It wasn’t accidental that Hitler’s Reich had an entire Ministry of Propaganda: lying to the public is a full-time job, as the cleverest of propaganda constructs is always threatened by the simple facts.
Here, Ahmadi Muslim Adam Walker explains that the Islamic State is violating the Qur’an’s own rules for how it should be interpreted. This would be great if he made his case and took it to jihadis to challenge and refute them directly. Of course, the immediate question his claim raises is why, if this is true, have over 20,000 foreign jihadis traveled from all over the world to join the Islamic State. Don’t those 20,000 Muslims have imams? How did they come to misunderstand the Qur’an and Islam so drastically as to miss its own rules for interpretation?
[…]
Walker’s whole case here is based on the idea that there are “context-independent verses” and “context-dependent verses,” the former being “unambiguous and timeless principles which can be applied in every situation” and the latter “those that are specific to particular situations, and can’t be read in isolation.” Actually the Qur’an verse to which he links says that there are some verses that are “precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific” (3:7). This has also been translated as “clear revelations – they are the substance of the Book – and others (which are) allegorical.” That is, some are clear and some are unclear. The verse then condemns “those in whose hearts is deviation, they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation” — that is, make much of the verses that are unclear.
The passage doesn’t actually say anything about “context.” Walker is trying to situate his argument within the familiar claims that non-Muslims are taking Qur’an verses “out of context,” and to go on from there to claim that the idea of violent jihad in Islam is based on taking these verses out of context. His entire premise is false, however, since “context” is not actually what Quran 3:7 is talking about.
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.” Critics & extremists are taking the fighting verses and ripping them out of context to promote a false impression of Islam. This alone renders these fighting verses mutashabihat, whereas they of course are unable to do so for the verses which declare when fighting is permissible. This renders such verses mohkam, as you’re unable to understand the applicability of the fighting verses without reference to their governing verses. As the underlying issue with this topic is context, context dependent/independent is a valid interpretation here.
Furthermore, the verse continues by saying that those in whose hearts is perversity take the mutashabihat verses and seek discord therewith. That is exactly what ISIS and those promoting hate against Islam are doing, by presenting verses which when presented in isolation can be falsely used to create disorder. Yet again, this proves that these verses fall under mutashabihat. What the Qur’an then says is to take all the verses together, and then you will know its true interpretation. With this issue, that means take all the verses which govern the context of fighting, and then all the verses which instruct on the details of fighting, together- and then you’ll know the Qur’an’s verdict. And that’s exactly what Adam Walker did in his piece.
Abrogation strips all of the tolerant verses of their precedence. Period. Reading the entire piece debunking Walker’s article, it’s amazingly clear that Mohamed’s sojourn to Medina to do war on the Jews, outranks everything else (that came before it, in importance. Abrogation is the linchpin in understanding the koran. Full stop.
Wow – ‘mutashabihat’ – yet another weird arab word has found its way into my awareness.
Here’s another funny one:
Mufa’ Khathat
well, funny sounding but not so funny in reality, is it?.
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.
Pete thanks for all your comments, you nail it shut as far as Im concerned. No matter which way you slice the argument, the violent. intolerant verses in the koran are clear, discernible and open ended, just like its anti-Semitism. It’s why they don’t really choose a debate forum, but rather, show muscle in the streets and shout you down.
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.
The other point is that even if supermario convinces every gullible westerner of Islam’s peacefulness it will make not one iota difference to Jihadi violence because it’s Muslims he needs to convince not Islam’s victims and potential victims.