*Â Khaleel Mohammed, a professor at San Diego State University, (‘Islamic studies’-of course!) is another one of those slick and slimy taqiyya spin-doctors who made it their business to pull the Islamic wool over unsuspecting infidels eyes and ears. Â Robert Spencer Â takes him to the cleaners @ Jihad Watch:
MuslimÂ ObsessionÂ interviewee throwsÂ ObsessionÂ under the bus, calls it “Satanic”
The audacity of BS
Khaleel Mohammed, a professor at San Diego State University and a popular “moderate Muslim,” goes around the country reassuring Jewish audiences by telling them that in the Qur’an Allah gives the land of Israel to the Jews. And it does say that. One key verse is 5:21, which promises Israel to the Jews conditionally: “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”
This sounds great, of course: it suggests that Muslims who fight against Israel are ignoring their own holy book, and that once this verse and others like it are pointed out to them, they will accept the existence of Israel. And it also suggests that the vast majority of Muslims, because of this verse, have no problem with Israel at all.
Unfortunately, the Qur’an also says that the Jews, through their disobedience to Allah, have earned Allah’s curse (2:89, 9:30). Those who are accursed forfeit whatever Allah has given them. Meanwhile, the true followers of Moses’s genuine, uncorrupted teachings are the Muslims, and so they are the ones who inherit the promises about Israel.
But that part of the Qur’anic message doesn’t make it into Khaleel Mohammed’s presentations.
Also, a few years ago Khaleel MohammedÂ said this about me: “He misquotes verses of the Qur’an, takes things out of context, and shamelessly lies.” Since I do not misquote verses of the Qur’an, take things out of context, or shamelessly lie, I contacted him and asked for either documentation of his charges or a retraction. (I also responded to his false chargesÂ here.) He refused to retract, even though he did not (and could not) produce even one example of my misquoting verses of the Qur’an, taking things out of context, or shamelessly lying. And he compounded matters by responding: “As for shameless lies, I stand by my assertion, especially after received material in which you claim Muhammad married his daughter in law etc.”
In reality, I did not fabricate this “claim,” and I am sure that Khaleel Mohammed is well aware of this. The notorious incident of Muhammad’s marriage to his former daughter-in-law Zaynab, far from being a “shameless lie,” is a well-known and much-discussed element of Islamic tradition. You can read about it inÂ this sectionÂ of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur’an series.
Anyway, Khaleel Mohammed burnished his credentials as a “moderate” by appearing inObsession, and for several years now since the film originally appeared he seemed perfectly happy to have done so. Even when it was shown on Fox, as far as I can tell Khaleel Mohammed uttered not a word of demurral or protest (if he did actually issue a statement at that time and I have overlooked it, please send it to me and I will correct this). But now that 28 million copies of the film have been distributed all over the country and it has a higher profile than ever before, Khaleel Mohammed has discovered that it is a “vile piece of propaganda,” and has apologized for appearing in it. The apologyÂ appears on the Obsession with Hate websiteÂ about which Marisol recently wroteÂ here.
In an exclusive statement for obsessionwithhate.com, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Obsession interviewee who is an Islamic Studies Professor, delivers a new lethal blow to the film’s credibility, exposing what many already knew:“Sadly, it would seem that I have allowed myself to be used. I gave an interview to the makers of “obsession” wherein I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists. I understood that the film would be used objectively, focusing on fanatics who seek to spread violence. I am aware that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that says it is not about Islam in general, but only about extremist interpretations.
“But the material from some of the speakers gives the lie to the disclaimer: many of them are not experts, or have used the mantle of academic qualifications to purvey hate. That their alarmist drivel should be mixed with my whittled down interview proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead. The free distribution of the film to voters in particular districts shows the political chicanery that is the motive, and the secrecy about the financing of the distribution only underlines the evil intent in circulating this vile piece of propaganda.
“Evidence seems to indicate the involvement of Aish ha-Torah in this dishonest enterprise. I find that particularly distressing, because any Jewish organization ought to realize what the film seeks to do: they demonize an entire community to the point where a government takes action to further beleaguer its citizens and resident aliens simply because of their religious identity. This bigotry over religion and identity is precisely what caused the Shoah â€” and it is sad that those who ought to have learned what hate can engender should seek to imitate Nazi propagandism.
“Yet â€” for all the nefarious intent of the distributors of the film â€” I must also accept culpability for allowing myself to be so used. I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islamâ€”but that has nothing to do with the film Obsession. I cannot stand by silently and allow my participation in such satanic demonization of innocents. I apologize to my fellow Muslims for appearing in such a film. I apologize to my Jewish teachers and friends– who have warned me time and again about falling into such a situationâ€”for not heeding their counsel. And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on. “
The audacity of Khaleel Mohammed’s BS never ceases to amaze me. For one thing, he says here, “I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists,” when he must know, if he knows anything about Islamic theology, that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that jihad mainly means warfare (by various means, violent and nonviolent) against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. And when he says that the film demonizes an entire community, he is ignoring large sections of the beginning and end of the film, where the film plainly states that most Muslims have nothing to do with the jihadist program, and other elements within it — including Khaled Abu Toameh’s assertion that his religion has been “hijacked,” which is presented without contradiction.
And then comes his most audacious bit of BS: “And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on.“ Obsessed with truth? This is a man who misrepresents the Qur’an to Jewish audiences; who has smeared me and my work with false charges that he refuses to retract; and who is either unacquainted with or deliberately deceptive about one of the most famous incidents in Muhammad’s career. Obsessed with truth? Obsessed with obscuring it, maybe. Obsessed with destroying it, fine. But obsessed with presenting it? Not Khaleel Mohammed.
So, Dr. Mohammed: I gladly accept the challenge you issued to those who support the film, and am ready to debate you aboutÂ Obsession, the meaning of jihad, the Jews in the Qur’an, and the life of Muhammad and his marriage to his former daughter-in-law. Or if you’d like to frame the debate in some other way, I am open to your suggestions. I’m happy to see that you have changed your tune from your contemptuous and inaccurate description of our earlier exchanges that still standsÂ here, in which you refuse to discuss substantive issues with me. I look forward to hearing from you at firstname.lastname@example.org, and will cheerfully publish your response. I love a good fight too. “Let’s get it on” indeed.
From a comment on a previous article about Khaleel Mohammed:
“That should be the end of Khaleel Mohammed’s short happy career as yet one more “Islamic reformer” (move over, Reza Aslan, Mustafa Akyol, Stephen Schwartz, Kamal Nawash, the excitable Irshad Manji, there’s room on the bench right here) — the “reformers” long on publicity-gathering, media appearances, and support of all kinds (would that JW had 1/100th of what they are taking, or rather raking in).
He has a special shtick, I understand, this K.M. Before audiences at Florida synagogues, he behaves like that character in Dickens who was always saying “I wants to make your flesh creep.” He warns them about anti-Jewish sentiments among Muslims. He scares them. They love being scared. He tells them his heart and mind are in the right place, and with the support of people like you, we “reformers” will take back Islam. Or words and sentiments to that effect. The audiences love it. He pockets his speaking fees. Not up in the platitude-and-shallow-plongitude range of Tom Friedman, but nothing to sneeze at if you have arrived from Guiana, and are an Assistant Professor somewhere. America, truly the “goldene medina.” And right now, all that Reformation of Islam stuff is hot, hot, hot, and so is that related topic, the War For the Soul of Islam. So shell out money, American infidels, and American government programs of Reach-out and Out-reach to the Muslim world. Shell out money, big foundations — all to those Muslim Bright Young Things who will most assuredly wish away Hadith and Sira, and some even dare speak of a new reading of the Qur’an. Fat chance. How this will be done, who will do it, and how hundreds of millions of Muslims will be persuaded to accept it is never explained. Which hadith will go? Which passages in the Qur’an, the Word of God, do you think you can excise or interpret away? Which details in the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, do you think can simply be cut out? Aisha? The Banu Qurayza? The Khaybar Oasis attack? The murder of Asma bint Marrwan? Or a hundred others? No can do.
Rattle the isnad-chains that bind you as you wish. Take out your Brooks and Warren, and try to interpret away passages in the Qur’an — perhaps we can convince all those Believers that it is just mystical poetry, Rumi avant la lettre, or like the Song of Songs. You know, allegories. Like Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, or Spenser’s Faerie Queen, or medieval debat of The Owl and the Nightingale. Stuff like that.
The plums in the pudding: the snippet of made-up dialogue between Robert and the “reformer”; the mursal hadith discussion, and the reading of Qur’an 3.28. But the whole pudding is so nutritious, that I think I am going to save some, so I can savor it s-l-o-w-l-y.
[Posted by: Hugh at May 10, 2005]Â
Posted by: HughÂ Â atÂ September 29, 2008 9:48 AM
* Sheik Yer’mami sez:
They are well and truly clones of each other. They seem to wanna outdo each other in who is the slickest and slyest taqiyya spin-doctor and who can best pull the Islamic wool over infidel eyes and ears.
In Australia there is the execrable Yusuf Irfan, a sharia advocate, who slimes and smears everyone in the counter-jihad movement in the vilest ways. He recently claimed on his blog that Dr Daniel Pipes called for the genocide of all Muhammedans in Europe and, in typical fashion, portrays Musulmaniacs as yesteryears Jooozzz, wronged, vilified and discriminated.
Yusuf retracted, of course, after being threatened with a costly lawsuit.(Dr Pipes never made such a statement) On his website ‘Planet Irf’ Yusuf also has a picture of Robert Spencer which he calls a ‘screaming sectarian bigot’. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is regularly smeared as an ‘immigration fraud’ -(give me a dollar for every Muhammedan who committed ‘immigration fraud’-) and I’ll buy us the finest luxury yacht for a cruise around the world!.
No, these people are creeps. They are the slime. They should have never been allowed to settle behind enemy lines, in the dar-al-harb.
This Mohammed- professor, like all Mohammeds, shares the same genetic makeup, like all dogs share certain characteristics. They been playing this game too long and got away with it.
It is time we let them know that the jig is up.
Khaleel responds to Spencer: Part 2
Khaleel Mohammed responds to the “satanic” Spencer: What would Jesus do?
For starters, Jesus would tell the truth
Khaleel Mohammed, the Islamic “scholar” who appeared inÂ ObsessionÂ but (now that the film is being distributed everywhere) has suddenly discovered it to be “Islamophobic,” has responded to my postÂ hereÂ with an article atÂ The American MuslimÂ — aÂ reliablyÂ truth-freeÂ publicationÂ — about “Spencer and his satanic cabal.”
His response consists of the usual series of insults to my integrity and scholarship, accompanied by the usual failure to provide any actual evidence of my alleged egregious errors. He even asks his readers to take his word that what he is saying is true:
Spencer seeks to hoodwink his readers by talking of Jihad being war…and that idea, rather obviously, is not accepted by scholars of Islam (Muslim and non-Muslim). I am not even going to get into detailing that I do not deny that there are some Muslims who attempt to warp the meaning into that…but throughout Islamic history, there have always been scholars who have harkened [sic] to the true meaning.
What is that true meaning? Which scholars? What establishes that the Muslims who believe that jihad includes warfare are “warping” its meaning? Khaleel Mohammed offers no answers — we just have to take it all on faith.
And then, displaying again the audacity of his dishonesty, he accuses me of being the one who doesn’t work from evidence:
I guess it irks you that your “scholarship” is not accepted among people of conscience and discernment. Perhaps, instead of knowledge, you rely on faith to argue against Islam and anyone who is a Muslim. Since you are such an upstanding crusader, I wonder: what would Jesus do in this situation?
What would Jesus do, Dr. Mohammed? For one thing, he would tell the truth. But that is a concept with which you are quite obviously unacquainted. For example, Khaleel Mohammed says this:
This time around he raises the red-herring and disproven nonsense about Muhammad marrying his daughter-in-law–and here, either Spencer is a bigger ignoramus than I think, or he has once again resorted to prevarication. It is difficult to figure out where he is coming from. The issue of whether or not an adopted son like Zaid is technically Muhammad’s son could be answered by any first week student of Islamic law. Perhaps Spencer should go reattend Professor Carl Ernst’s classes and get some deprogramming from a bona-fide expert on Islam.
I never had the pleasure of being a student of theÂ estimable Carl Ernst, so Khaleel Mohammed’s “reattend” is inaccurate.
But more importantly, in this Khaleel Mohammed suggests that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, did not actually marry his daughter-in-law, because his adopted son Zayd was not to be considered his son at all — and that I am either unaware of all this or lying about it. It is “difficult” for Khaleel Mohammed to know where I am “coming from” because he apparently has not read, or does not want his readers to know about, my discussions of this incident, in which I deal with the material he claims I ignore. See, for example,Â this sectionÂ of myÂ Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur’an series:
Allah here emphasizes that an adopted son cannot be a true son, and so by extension Zaynab was never really Muhammad’s daughter-in-law at all, and there is no cause for scandal.
If Khaleel Mohammed had cared to spend even a moment on research before slinging his accusations, he might have discovered that I also discuss the issue of adoption and its relationship to the Zaynab incident on page 67 of my 2006 bookÂ The Truth About Muhammad. But he prefers to pretend that I ignore all this, out of either stupidity or bigotry, in order to portray Muhammad in the worst possible light.
Yet it is I whose scholarship is poor and who issue “poison-pen” tirades.
“Satanic.” “Ignoramus.” “Bigotry.” “Crusader.” Khaleel Mohammed’s frenzied name-calling only highlights his intellectual bankruptcy, his contempt for truthful and honest dealing — and his increasing desperation at being exposed as the poseur he is.