Robert Spencer has been providing an invaluable service to Muslims and non-Muslims alike in his Blogging the Qur’an series which is featured at HotAir and Spencer’s own site, Jihad Watch. For non-Muslims, Spencer’s exegesis may be the first acquaintance with the Suras and Hadith to which Spencer makes frequent reference. Muslims, although already familiar with the Qur’an, may not be aware which verses are used by Islamic terrorists and mujahideen as justification for the atrocious acts that have plagued the world for decades now. Spencer’s Q-Blog can show ordinary Muslims why people always keep the quotations around the phrase “the religion of peace,” when referring to Islam, for Spencer refers to examples of real acts of violence and terror that refer back to Qur’anic verses. I, myself, have blogged about Spencer’s Q-Blog, here, here and here.

However, just as the Prophet Muhammad… um… “borrowed”  material from the holy books of Judaism and Christianity, and just as the MAS YouTube campaign to discredit Muslim stereotypes turned out to be… well, see for yourself:

Hee hee hee, good going, MAS-tards!

Where was I? Oh yeah,

So, too, has Robert Spencer’s idea of blogging the Qur’an been ripped off and criticized by those who think they can do better. Too bad these real Muslims only wind up pwning themselves when they try to find flaws in Spencer’s scholarship. From Jihad Watch:

I’ve been Blogging the Qur’an since last May, and now that Ziauddin Sardar at The Guardian has startedin on the same effort, Zahed Amanullah over at Alt.Muslim has taken notice of what I’ve been doing.

Zahed Amanullah calls Spencer’s posts “surprisingly sedate.”

Sedate?

I guess tradition exegeses of the Qur’an are riddled with invective, causing readers to instantly seethe with hatred!

Amanullah also says that Robert Spencer’s latest Q-Blog is “scattered with varying degrees of misinterpretation.” Spencer continues:  

Anyway, Amanullah’s sole example of my alleged “varying degrees of misinterpretation” of sura 10 is this: “it’s not ‘up to Allah who believes and who doesn’t,’ Robert… it’s that humans have been given free will to choose their destiny.” That refers to my gloss on sura 10:99-100, which goes like this: “If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe? No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.”

Well, I’m sorry, Mr. Amanullah, but that just doesn’t sound to me like an affirmation that “humans have been given free will to choose their destiny.” It sounds like just the opposite. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s consult the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, which explains the passage this way (the parts in parentheses are the text of the Qur’anic verse): “(It is not for any) disbelieving (soul to believe) in Allah (save by the permission of Allah) save by Allah’s will and given success. (He hath set uncleanness) He leaves denial (upon those) in the hearts of those (who have no sense) who do not apprehend Allah’s divine Oneness. This verse was revealed about Abu Talib. The Prophet (pbuh) was so keen that he believes, but Allah did not want him to believe.”

“Allah did not want him to believe.” Did Abu Talib have free will? Apparently not. Ibn Kathir, in commenting on the same passage, refers us to Qur’an 35:8 and 2:272, which say that Allah leads astray whom he wills, and guides whom he wills.

In fact, in early Islam there was a controversy about free will and divine sovereignty, and the Qadariyya, the upholders of free will, emerged as the losers — the heretical party. The Qur’an — and particularly the Shia in interpreting it — affirms that a person is responsible for his actions, but it also simultaneously affirms that Allah decides everything and guides everyone to truth or falsehood (”Allah leads astray those whom he wills, Qur’an 35:8). This is not quite the same thing as the proposition that “humans have been given free will to choose their destiny.” If Mr. Amanullah would care to have a discussion or dialogue about this, I’m game — and I promise him it will be a “surprisingly sedate” one.

Finally, he asserts: “Still, the idea of explaining the Qur’an in depth to an audience that is already predisposed to despise it is not a very efficient use of influence.” That is not remotely my intention. I am trying to show any and all interested parties what is in the Qur’an, and above all how mainstream Muslim interpreters and authorities have understood those contents. Mr. Amanullah has tried but so far failed to document any inaccuracies in my presentation, although I invite him to dig further, and while I appreciate his concern for whether my use of time is efficient or not, I suggest that what is much more important is the actual content of the Qur’an and its implications for the modern world. Again, if he’d like to discuss that, sedately, I’m ready.

pwn3d