Exchange with Hate Preacher Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer is a well-known name in the Islamophobia network. His anti-Muslim hatred and promotion of Islamophobia is so vile, even the UK decided to bar him from entering the country.

A letter from the UK Home Office said the decision – effective for up to 5 years – was based on Spencer’s vicious Islamophobic views. A government spokesperson reportedly said:

“We condemn all those whose behaviors and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.”

The fact that the UK considers Spencer more hateful than Anjem Chowdhry should alarm anyone to the extent of his bigotry. In reality, they are both made of the same protoplasm.

The BBC reported Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who had called for Spencer (and his associate Pamela Geller) to be banned from the UK, saying:

“I welcome the home secretary’s ban on Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the country. This is the right decision. The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.”

A researcher with the anti-fascism organization Hope Not Hate, Matthew Collins, said:

“These two are among some of the most extreme anti-Muslim activists in the world. They’ve nothing to contribute to life in this country. They’re not here to contribute to good community relations. They only wanted to come here and help the EDL stir up more trouble. Britain doesn’t need more hate even just for a few days.”

In this day and age, bigots who promote racism, antisemitism or Islamophobia are rightly called out by those seeking a peaceful world. Spencer is well known for wrongly claiming that Islam is represented by terrorists like the Taliban. In a recent exchange with him, he claimed the Taliban were true Muslims, but hesitated to call me a Muslim because of my progressive reformist views on Islam. Read Exchange Here: Spencer & Geller identify Taliban – but not Ahmadis – as Muslims.

I belong to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, one of the largest organized communities of Muslims worldwide, with tens of millions of members in over 200 countries in the world, united under His Holiness, the Khalifa of Islam. We promote universal justice, freedom of conscience and speech, and free exchange and criticism of ideas in accordance with the teachings of Islam. We extend humanitarian service in all parts of the world irrespective of faith or creed (e.g. www.muslimsforlife.org). We condemn violent Jihad, and apostasy and blasphemy laws as un-Islamic and inhumane, and champion the separation of Church and State. We speak loudly for the rights of persecuted minorities in parts of the Muslim world, just as we despise persecution elsewhere.

Because Muslims like us do not fit the description of the Muslim Spencer wants to project to the world – angry gun-wielding terrorists – he tries hard to discredit us and our views. And when he fails, he bursts into ‘ad hominem mode,’ turning to repeated slander and abuse. Spencer frequents my twitter timeline, and is known for engaging in abusive trolling for hours on end.  We recently had another exchange on twitter in which he called me a terrorist enabler, Jihadi apologist etc etc.

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 10.21.03 PM

Keep in mind, the Ahmadi Muslims are persecuted in parts of the Muslim world, especially in Pakistan, where hundreds have been killed by the Taliban, and the State continues to enforce laws restricting their freedoms and basic human rights. Why would Spencer identify me with my killers?

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 12.16.34 AM

Robert Spencer co-runs the extreme far right, and Islamophobic, organization “Stop Islamization of America,” which has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. FBI defines a hate group as one who’s “primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization”. The Southern Poverty Law Center has described SIOA as a “propaganda powerhouse” that paints moderate Muslims as radical terrorists. No wonder Spencer was quick to label me a radical and a terror apologist.

The Southern Poverty Law Center website has a long section documenting Spencer’s bigotry. Here is a small excerpt:

“Spencer also attacks individuals and organizations that claim to represent moderate Islam. This is most commonly done through accusations of those entities acting as secret operatives to destroy the West. Spencer engages in fear-mongering through steady reference to theories like “stealth jihad,” eminent “Islamization of America,” and the infiltration of Congress by “Muslim spy interns.”

Spencer is known to have associations with European racists and neo-fascists. However, he claims that his contact with them is merely incidental.

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist who slaughtered 77 people, mostly teens, in Oslo and the nearby island of Utoya on July 22, 2011, referenced Spencer’s writings dozens of times in his 1,500-page manifesto. He believed that Islam was destroying Western civilization.”

According to Heidi Beirich, Deputy Director of SPLC, Geller and Spencer’s writings were “the primary sources for the anti-Muslim propaganda that had helped give voice” to Breivik’s 1500+ page manifesto.

The well-known hate preacher is known for his twitter trolling as well. I will address parts of our recent twitter exchange here briefly.


1) Doctrine of Jihad

Spencer claimed he was my Savior. “You attack those who defend you against Jihadi terrorism. You are a terrorist enabler,” he kept repeating like a broken record.

Lets be clear. Spencer’s focus is not in fighting ‘Jihadi terror,’ but in insisting that this extremism is real Islam. Any Muslim who does not conform to his imagination is quickly attacked through repeated slander, labelled a terror apologist or even a terrorist.

He misrepresents Islam’s teachings, flaunting the narrative of Jihadist terrorists as authentic and any other as deviant. Spencer is no fan of Muslims like me who fight the ideology of the Jihadists, and are killed in places like Pakistan for standing up to extremism. The reason he doesn’t like us is because we challenge his narrow world view on Islam. A pluralistic, tolerant worldview from a Muslim is anathema to his personal agenda. It terrifies him. This is why, instead of siding with us in this fight, he choses to fight us instead.

There is no doubt “Jihadi terrorism” is a real problem. All terrorism is – including “Christian terrorism” in parts of the world like CAR, Uganda, South Sudan and Mexico. We Ahmadi Muslims have been condemning Jihadi violence since the inception of the Community at the hands of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1889. For condemning the prevalent belligerent view on Jihad at the time, the founder of the community faced edicts of heresy and death threats by some of his contemporaries.

Jihad is an Arabic word which means struggle. I wrote about the Islamic concept of Jihad in this The Record oped: The Doctrine of ‘Jihad. There is doubt that Islam categorically forbids violence. The killing of one human is akin to killing the whole of humanity (5:32). The physical Jihad at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an existential necessity to defend against onslaughts, and protect religious freedom. In this age, Ahmadi Muslims engage in a Jihad of the pen through intellectual discourse to debunk myths about Islam and its Holy Prophet. The Muslim Writers Guild of America, of which I have been a former Chairman, is one such forum.

Instead of doggedly insisting that I recognize the Jihadists who are out to kill me as true representatives of my faith, I invite Spencer to side with me against their narrative, which I consider inhumane and unIslamic. He won’t accept this invitation because my peaceful intellectual narrative is a threat to his bigoted agenda. The whole hate empire he has built comes crashing down with such an admission. A Muslim fighting the Jihadis, yet claiming to follow Islam? Let’s call him a terror apologist. Smh!

Spencer claims I must accept him as my Savior. In fact, he is only the Savior for the extremist narrative that I fight.

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 8.28.52 PM

2) Death for Apostasy

In the same conversation, Spencer said the “dangerous” Koran prescribes death for apostates.

“Are you referring to this verse?” I asked:

“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.” (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)

Deuteronomy 17:3-5 and 2 Chronicles 15:13 reinforce the same injunction about death for apostates.

Spencer became furious. “You are a terrorist enabler,” he said. Christians do not act on these verses anymore, he claimed.

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 10.24.43 PM

“I am glad they don’t,” I responded. But show me ONE verse in the Koran that speaks of death for apostasy. He mentioned 4:89.

This verse speaks of specific hypocrites – not apostates – who were keen on fighting the State of Medina. “They (hypocrites mentioned in preceding verse) long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.”

The reference here is to those Bedouin tribes that had formed mutual alliances with Muslims, but were planning on entering into a confederation with the Meccans against Prophet Muhammad at the same time. Muslims were advised against befriending such hypocrites. In case they resorted to treason through open hostilities, Muslims were commanded to engage them in a fight. The next verse makes this even clearer. In 4:90, God forbade the Muslims from fighting those of the hypocrites that remained peaceful. “…if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.”

Where is apostasy mentioned?

The Koran upholds free speech and freedom of conscience. I have debated this with an anti-Islam anti-theist activist here: Does the Koran Endorse Apostasy Laws? Spencer is free to rebut the piece.

For a detailed scholarly take on this subject, I invite readers to study this chapter on apostasy from the book Murder In The Name of Allah by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the late fourth Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 8.30.16 PM
Spencer immediately took to the back foot. Some other Muslims “interpret” the verse this way, he claimed. This was subtle admission that the verse itself said nothing of the sort he implied. It was not the Koran, but “interpretations” by men that he was leaning on.

Spencer’s Homework
1) Show me ONE verse in Koran that speaks of death for apostasy, without relying on “interpretations” by others, let alone terrorists?
2) If you are indeed honest in your hatred for such cruel punishments for mere free choice, would you condemn the Biblical verses I referenced above? Shall we remove them from the Bible?


3) Death For Blasphemy

Spencer then mentioned the punishment of blasphemy in certain Muslim-majority countries as proof of Koran’s evil nature. Once again, I asked Spencer if he was referring to this verse:

“Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:16)

Spencer said no Christian or Jew followed these laws anymore. Thats great to know. I pray extremist Mullahs in parts of the Muslim world also stop following these unIslamic Biblical laws. The Ahmadi Muslims condemn blasphemy laws in Pakistan and elsewhere. They have no basis in the Koran whatsoever.

After the tragic Charlie Hebdo attacks, I penned down this oped on Blasphemy: Reacting To Charlie Hebdo — Two Extremes‏. Read and see for yourself what the Koran says.

Spencer then mentioned Kaab and Asma as examples of people punished for their free speech. In fact, Kaab was punished for inciting war and partnering with a warring enemy. Asma’s account is controversial, many scholars considering it a fabrication. No wonder Spencer has to rely on fabricated or distorted accounts, and not the Koran, to prove his own point – and that of the extremists. Why would he go to such lengths to prove the extremists right, and me wrong?

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 8.29.12 PM

Related: Read renowned author, lawyer and Muslim leader Mr. Qasim Rashid’s book on common Islamophobe allegations against Islam: EXTREMIST: A Response to Geert Wilders & Terrorists Everywhere.

Spencer’s Homework
1) Show me ONE verse in the Koran that prescribes death for blasphemy?
2) If you are honest in your disgust for blasphemy laws, would you condemn the specific verses of the Bible that speak of this barbarity? Just as I condemn all States – Muslim or otherwise – that have blasphemy laws in place.

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 8.30.23 PM

4) Prophet of terror? 

Spencer then claimed that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a man of terror. He referenced this quote attributed to Prophet Muhammad in a narration: “I have been made victorious with terror.”

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 10.21.59 PM

The Arabic word used in the narration is “Ru’b,” which is Arabic for awe, panic or trance. It is also used in another narration. The Prophet (pbuh) said:

“I was given victory through Ru`b. The enemy becomes filled with Ru`b even though they are the distance of a month’s journey away from me.”(Ahmad #20337).

This makes it clear that he was referring to the awe, fright or panic the enemies felt when plotting against him from afar. Indeed, we see that his enemies were never successful against him despite much larger numbers and equipment. This psychological fear prevented further attacks on the Muslims and saved many lives, and the unnecessary hardships of war.

Spencer’s Homework
1) Why did you mislead your readers (as always) by implying that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) meant violence when he used the word ‘Ru’b?’
2) In Mathew 10-34, Jesus is reported to have said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” I do not believe Jesus (on whom be peace) was a man of terror, but the Jesus presented in this verse does not appear to be as peaceful as the one I read in the Koran. Do you believe Jesus was a man of terror based on what you consider his own authentic words?

5) Islamophobia

After each rebuttal, Spencer would change the topic of the conversation.

Screen Shot 2015-02-14 at 11.07.38 PM
He then agreed to debate me on “Islamophobia.” What is there to debate about it? Islamophobia and antisemitism are evils that the world must denounce and call out. This is exactly why countries like the UK have decided to bar Spencer from entry. He is a dangerous hate preacher who’s empire is built on lies and false propaganda.

He is part of an industry that is well-funded to spread fear of the minority Muslims in the West. Read this report on this industry: The Islamophobia network.

When I mentioned this to Spencer, he became furious. In his madness, he indadvertedly admitted to benefitting from this network.

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 10.23.39 PM
See, I have nothing personal against Spencer. I am only opposed to bigotry – be it racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia etc etc. I am equally vocal against the Mullahs in the Muslim world.

Those Christians who blindly follow hate preachers here in the USA are no different from those ignorant Muslims who follow extremist Mullahs and hate preachers in countries like Pakistan.

It is time my fellow Christian friends condemn their own Mullahs, just as we loudly condemn our own. Extremism and bigotry should be sidelined, and taken out of the mainstream.

While I preach this, Spencer’s ad hominem attacks continue. Who cares about intellectual discourse?

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 10.27.39 PM

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 10.21.03 PM
Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 8.28.27 PM Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 8.28.09 PM
Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 8.35.27 PM

The Koran says, “And the servants of the Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, “Peace!.”

So, yeah! “Peace, Sir!” 

  • Thomas Sheehan

    There is so much projection here from Spencer onto you. You can see his shadow in all of the accusations he makes against you, and all of the labels he places upon you. These are present in shadow in his own opinion of himself. That is how I would evaluate what he says. He is unacquainted with his own shadow, so he projects it onto you, demonizing you.

    • I would rather follow loving souls like you Father Thomas. I see the true spirit of Jesus in your conduct and character.

      • Thomas Sheehan

        Thanks, Kashif. I see the same in you. Some people are annoyed and disagree with my support for your causes, and it is always painful to lose them, but I am also drawn to the spirit of Jesus in your conduct and character. I sense a similar vocation in you, in spite of all the rejection you receive.

    • JustforBob

      Hi Thomas. Perhaps it would be illustrative if you scrolled up to see kashif calling me a bigot simply because I disagreed with him on a particular issue.

      • Thomas Sheehan

        The key seems to be your comment on Kaab, which does not refer to anything in this blog post. Kashif responds, knowing the context. I do not. That prevents me from commenting, until I know the context.

        • JustforBob

          That disagreeing with his version of history makes me a bigot?

          Got it.

          Thanks for avoiding taking a stand, Thomas.

          Why don’t you tell us RS is merely projecting his name calling onto Kashif, again?

          The comedy sure writes itself over here. Yes-sirree.

  • Hypocrite

    Sometimes you just should avoid conversation. It is like talking with a brick wall.

    • Pedro Rabaçal

      You should have adviced Spencer, not Kashif…


    Excellently done. Great work Kashif.

  • Long John

    Great piece Kashif. Liked the homework part very much though a bit too tough for Rob.

  • laura r

    ok now its spencers turn. all he had was tweets. you had the forum. to be fair: have him write a full rebuttal. then publish it. can you rise to the occassion? show us what you got! we want facts form both sides. afterwards each side wil be considered. thankyou, @laurarubin7

    • Kyle
      • noxcovenant

        I would just take my time responding if I was you Kashif.

        Remember, Robert Spencer’s job is 100% devoted to JihadWatch. It’s virtually a dream job in which he’s paid 6 figures to SPECIFICALLY write 10-20 pages a day in the pursuit of his agenda. I’m not condemning him for his great job (because I’d love to have it) But the reality is that you’re a physician who is merely doing this website on his spare time so don’t feel compelled to respond so quickly.

        But as you formulate your response, I can already notice he likes to obfuscate about small matters regarding never calling you a “jihad enabler”. While that may or may not be true, he called you much worse when he said you were an “enabler of murder”.

        • laura r

          both of these people (KC/RS) nitpick. theres too much talk about the big M, the bible what ever. its just a distraction. everyone should focus on the present situation.

        • Jihad is genocide, and anyone who obfuscates for it — even unintentionally — facilitates it.

      • laura r

        yes i see he responded, excellent.

  • noxcovenant

    I don’t even necessarily have a problem with people who say Islam is violent. That’s your opinion.

    But Robert Spencer attribution of “demonization” to anyone who dares challenge his opinion is vile. He treats every discussion like an apocalypse (ironically similar to how ISIS views the world) and that’s why he rarely gets discussion. He’s already made up his mind so if you disagree with him, you’re literally “evil” – instead of just merely disagreeing with him.

    • JustforBob

      I think you’ll find Kahsif was the one to demonize Spencer, at least first, not the other way round.

      • noxcovenant

        As Kashif said, “calling out bigotry is not attack”. You can refute the bigotry by clarifying your points.

        You can’t refute someone when they say your abstract soul is “diseased” and that you’re an “enabler of murder” (basically manslaughter).

        • JustforBob

          Could u plz show rs was the first to engage in personal attacks? I see rs respond showing kashif being very hostile just as he demonstrated to me.

      • Are you Bob himself? 🙂

        • Pedro Rabaçal

          I am not “bob” but I agree with JustforBob.

          You are the one who seem to demonize Spencer.
          Amazing how Islam apologists have harsher words to an harmless guy, who just talk, than to jihadists full of violence and whose speeches glorify violence and hatred against diferent faiths and life styles. The ones that Spencer criticizes…

        • CoffeyC

          Accusing someone of demonizing someone, for exposing the problems with the dogmas of islam is almost as absurd as trying to declare that they have an irrational fear of something that is demonstrably the most bigoted, xenophobic, misogynist, pederastic, and inhuman cult being practiced by One and a half billion muslims today.

          Fortunately, as in all religions, we can assume that a significant number of those muslims have a higher personal moral standard, than does islam, or did the prophet of islam. Even so, anyone who condemns the violence committed in the name of islam, as a direct imprimatur of the core beliefs of islam, without also condemning the belief system that creates this problem, bears some level of responsibility… even though they too would probably be in fear of their lives in most parts of the world. It is sad that the majority of muslims polled, support some of the most pernicious, vicious and evil doctrines of islam, as well as the cult of veneration for their prophet.

          Islam is incompatible with civilization in many ways.

          As for your assertion that Mr. Spencer would need to resort to using a sock puppet account to make comments here, it is as infantile as your defense of islam. Spencer need not lower himself to the liying nonsense, the takiyya of the apologist. The facts of islam, the Quran, the sunna the Sira, and fourteen hundred years of islamic history are all on his side.

  • bumble

    First of all examines your existence now if you were brought up an Inuit , you would believe in Inuit spiritual doctrine . Now Kashif give yourself a a good long stare in the mirror ……….it’s quite a contrived story and you can in your face see how it is like a virus where it goes into a preservation mode , excuses , facts , whatever . Read a Dawkins book and push your boundaries !!

  • JustforBob

    In fact, Kaab was punished for inciting war and partnering with a warring enemy.

    You mean Kaab was assassinated, rather than ‘punished’.

    Your choice of wording shows clear bias.

    But, regardless, how can someone incite war against Muhammad when Muhammad already declared war and the two sides were actively fighting against each other?

    Kaab was assassinated because his poetry insulted Muhammad. If you can find contemporary examples where poets are killed for insults (or for your absurd notion of ‘inciting war’) – and such killings are seen as legitimate by world bodies like the UN or HRW – then please let us know.

    • 1) “JustForBob” shows your commitment to Bob’s cause. He must be glad he has defenders like you Sir. But there’s a reason you are not here with your real identify. Its not easy to be a public bigot.

      2) Kaab was punished for incitement to war. This is documented history. Someone might claim down the road that Bin Laden was killed for wearing a white turban, but that doesnt change the actual reason they were killed. There were numerous poets, and slanderers in Arabia. The chief of them, Abdullah Bin Ubay, was forgiven by Prophet Muhammad, who even led his funeral prayer despite all his excesses and attacks on the Prophet and his wives.

      3) The UN and HRW despise war crimes e.g. Israel’s indiscriminate killings in Gaza. They do not despise punishing Osama for inciting war. There’s a difference between rightful punishment for war and indiscriminate illegal war crimes.

      • JustforBob

        Thank you for prejudging me by calling me a bigot. This is exhibit ‘a’ vindicating Spencer.

        So now ur making some pretty outrageous claims.
        1. Obl was not assassinated;
        2. Even if obl were, he was not killed for merely incitement;
        3. You repeatedly make a historical claim w/o referring to primary sources;
        4. You ignore logical inconsistency of your premise that two sides were already at war;
        5. Lastly, there’s ahadith evidence Muhammad approved of killing for blasphemy.

  • Chris Smith

    “Islamophobia” is a highly manipulative term that is used to combat any criticism of Islam. Fear of Islamic militancy, that which we see with such propensity day in and day out currently, is not an irrational concern. Charges of “Islamophobia”, commits the same fallacy as those the charge is often aimed at. It wrongfully accuses and conflates between any and all.

    Lumping an entire doctrine into one narrow, monolithic category, with all its followers into that same narrow category, is counter-intuitive. Similarly, refuting any valid exegesis of Islam, which may conclude some criticism of Islam, is equally illogical.

    I am interested in what the author believes is the biggest problem with the perception of Islam today, both amongst those who do, and do not, identify as Muslims. Certainly, we are often told by the media that these self-proclaimed jihadists are misunderstanding their own peaceful religion, but the misunderstanding appears to be rather uniform, and that rationalization no longer seems adequate in the estimation of many.

    • laura r

      if i belonged to dr K’s group, i would rebrand myself. also if they are so against jihad why dont they work w/spencer? im jewish, i understand anti semitism. sometimes they have a valid point. what can i say? 78% of jews voted for obama. im not on that team.

    • Muhammad declared, attributing to Allah: “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5). That’s been known traditionally as “the Verse of the Sword.”

      Regarding Ibn Kathir and his tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis):

      Ibn Kathir “wrote a famous commentary on the Qur’an named Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur’an, in explanation. Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qur’an today . . . Ibn Kathir was renowned for his great memory regarding the sayings of Muhammad and the entire Qur’an. Ibn Kathir is known as a qadi, a master scholar of history, and a mufassir (Qur’an commentator).”

      Here’s how Ibn Kathir explains the Verse of the Sword (Muhammad’s words in parentheses):

      Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

      (So travel freely for four months throughout the land.)

      Allah said next,

      (So when the Sacred Months have passed…),

      meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.’ Allah’s
      statement next,

      (then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them)

      means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,

      (And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. 2:191) Allah said here,

      (and capture them)

      executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

      (and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush)

      do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

      (But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave
      their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

      Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

      Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

      (I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

      This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.”

      So, the Verse of the Sword “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term,” leaving non-Muslims “no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”

      There’s Chaudhry’s “Islamophobia.”

      • MachineM

        Ibn Kathir is a 13th century exegist who was financed by the Mamluk dynasty of Syria. He didn’t talk nor meet Muhammed. As far as anyone is concerned, his exegesis should always be suspect because he had a direct benefit in maintaining his ruler with religious hegemony.

        His interpretation is not binding on any Muslim. Stop with the Ibn Kathir’ism.


    Wow dozens of comments attacking Kashif, zero comments attacking his arguments, much less refuting them. But what else can you expect from Spencer supporters. They’re as ignorant as he is.

    • laura r

      spencer attacked his auguments, see jihad watch. there is a good rebuttal.

      • There is no rebuttal of my “homework section” Spencer admits those barbaric laws are Biblical, does not present any Koranic verse, but interpretations by men.

        As for his offer, its not for debate. Its for drawing cartoons. Let me know if he decides to respond to my homework.

        • The difference between those “barbaric laws” and Islam’s mandates for the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert is that those Old Testament laws were applied only to the people of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant, an agreement into which the ancient Hebrews entered voluntarily.

          The genocidal pedophile Muhammad commanded his people to war against the non-Muslim world on solely “religious” grounds.

          That’s the difference between Heaven and hell.

        • noxcovenant

          >The genocidal pedophile Muhammad commanded his people to war against the non-Muslim world on solely “religious” grounds.

          Actually, the wars in Deuteronomy were very religiously-oriented.

          “Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them…For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods…ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.” (Deuteronomy 7:2,4-5)

          These people had to be destroyed because they “will turn away thy son from following me”. The land was certainly promised to the Jews, and current inhabitants had to be utterly destroyed for that to happen. But part of the reason was that they believed the wrong thing which had the capability to corrupt the Jewish nation. That meant all their religious paraphernalia had to go. Again, like I said in an earlier post, this is not polemic against the Jewish faith (so please don’t take any offense). I am reading the Jewish books purely on an analytic perspective because I love history.

        • laura r

          will re check his “offer” it is on your site & his. what i recall was that it was for debate. will get back to you on that one. thankyou for responding. LR

    • dozens of comments attacking […] zero comments attacking his arguments […] what else can you expect […] They’re as ignorant as he is.

      That’s ironic.