From the Hesperado Files

by Hesperado on September 8, 2012

in counterjihad, Hesperado (team member), Islam, Judaism, Qur'an

truth is out there
by Hesperado

The Al Aqsa Mosque: Architectural Supremacism and Insult Against Christianity

With the kind indulgence of the blog owners here at 1389 Counterjihad, I’m going to start a series where I dip into the hundreds of files on Islam I have collected for the past decade.

These files exist either as Word files, or as links in my Favorites. I can’t remember where I got most of them, as they span so many years, and have been collecting dust all this time. Sometimes, luckily I preserved a link, which I will provide when this is the case.

My intention is to publish them one by one over the coming months — perhaps once or twice per week. There are so many, it may well take me years to finish! And because there is so much to sift through, I am not going to expend much time or effort editing them. As a result, some of them may appear somewhat rough around the edges.

My first installment concerns the inscriptions which are carved into the various facades of the second most holy mosque in all Islam — the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. These inscriptions all around the mosque in prominent placements are blatant attacks on Christian theology — specifically, on Christology and on the Trinity.

What other religion would have outside one of its major churches messages carved in stone directly and specifically attacking the central tenet of the theology of any other religion? Certainly it would be unthinkable for any Christian church today anywhere in the world to have such messages condemning the very heart of Islamic doctrine. But here stands this Islamic mosque, and nobody seems to call Muslims on their brazenly supremacist hypocrisy and chutzpah.

You can bet if the sandal were on the other foot, Muslim terrorists would have plotted to blow up such a Christian church, and/or would have issued death threats, likely backed up by mass demonstrations in various cities around the world seething with hatred. But when Muslims do it against Christians — nothing happens.

Without further ado, then, I present my first installment:

Inner Face: South Wall. In the name of God the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no God but God alone; He has no co-partner. He is the Kingship and His the praise. He giveth life and He causeth to die, and He hath power over everything.

South-East Wall. Verily God and His angels pronounce blessing upon the Prophet. O ye who have pronounced blessings upon Him and give Him the salutation of peace. O, People of the Book [i.e. the Jews and Christians, always referred to as such by the Muslims -Ed.] do not go beyond the bounds in your religion and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is a messenger of God and His word which he cast upon Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe only in God and of his messenger, but do not say “Three” (Trinity) and it will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from His glory that he should have a son.

North Wall. The Messiah will not deny to be in the service of God nor will the angels who stand in his presence. O God; pray upon Thy messenger “the servant Jesus – [Northwest Wall] the son of Mary and peace be upon him the day of his birth, the day of his death and the day of his being raised alive.” That is Jesus, son of Mary – a statement concerning which YOU are in doubt. It is not for God to take for Himself any offspring, glory be to Him.

West Wall. God bears witness that there is no God but Him, likewise the angels and the people possessed of knowledge

Southwest Wall. Upholding justice. There is no God but He, the Almighty and All wise. Verily, the religion in God’s sight is Islam.

Outer Face: West and Northwest Walls. In the name of God the Merciful and Compassionate. There is no God but God alone. Praise be to God who hath not taken to himself offspring. To Him there has never been any person in the sovereignty. Mohammed is the messenger of God, may God pray upon Him and accept his intercession.

Praise be God who has not taken unto himself a son and who has no partner in sovereignty nor has He any protector on account of weakness.

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Why-Believe-in-Allah/Temple-Mount-restored-by-Muhammad.htm

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

1 archimedes September 9, 2012 at 9:32 am

My comment wasn’t on Frontpage, but was on Jihadwatch. Judging by the date you cite at the end, and by the mention of the “Abdullah” in question, the link to the original comment is here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/11/acair-founder-my-battle-against-hate.html#comment-141448
Posted by: Archimedes, November 13, 2005 11:24 PM

You wrote: “Without further ado, I hereby quote the long explanation”

Well, it’s not purely a quote you’ve provided because you’ve made some changes to the writing in spots. If you’ve modified it, it’s no longer strictly a quote. Also, unfortunately you’ve lost some of the quotation marks I had within the original comment, which distinguish my commentary from the other authors I quoted. You might want to fix that.

But I believe my first online comment on the subject, regarding Bush’s Iftar dinner apologetics, and in response to a different and more famous Muslim apologist named Abdullah (Khouj), showing the double standards of the Islam propagandists on the context issue and 5:32, was here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/10/bush-holds-iftar-dinner-says-muslim-leaders-must-denounce-terrorism.html#comment-86390

Aside from these and other rough comments on JW re 5:32, where I was merely doing rough sketches, I have a more developed formal article version here:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/islam_peace.html

I also wrote a much more detailed version for Islam-Watch in 2006, but I think it is no longer available online, except perhaps through the Wayback Machine.

2 Hesperado September 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm

archimedes,

I made a couple of corrections based on your points, but I’m not going to spend too much time on these installments, as I have too many of them, and if I fine-tuned them too much I’d end up being unable to do it.

The quote marks for the PRCS internal quote I deleted because it wasn’t clear who was talking, whether it was PRCS or some other source he was quoting, and rather than spend time adding some kind of explanation to clarify that, I simply deleted the quote marks which, without that explanation, tend to distract the reader.

The main thing is the content, and the argument, not the minutiae of who said what surrounding the content. With this series, I’m just in effect taking out files from an old dusty drawer and plopping them on the table (the table being this blog).

The reader can make adjustments if he wishes based on your comment published above here accordingly.

I spent too much time on this one installment already. I have literally hundreds more to put out in the weeks, months, years ahead. As I go along I shall learn from the process, and hopefully learn better to be more ruthless with time-saving, rather than get caught up in details.

3 Egghead September 10, 2012 at 11:00 pm

And so, we run into this problem again where we see a clash between 1) creators trying to get credit for their work and control its dissemination – a perfectly valid and legal concern, and 2) people trying to use their work (ofttimes without proper attribution let alone permission) to save the world. Oh the angst!

Archimedes, if I recall correctly, Hesperado has long advocated that the counter-jihad (or anti-Islam movement aka AIM) develop a resource that would provide direction for people to answer all of the situations that occur again and again. Hesperado is presumptuous, but his motivation is to accomplish good. He is just trying to help by sharing relevant insights about Islam with as many people as possible. Although he failed to express it as such, it is an honor for him to choose your ideas as the first focus of his pet project.

Hesperado, how would you like to be misquoted? It would drive you crazy, right? :)

Egghead

4 archimedes September 11, 2012 at 5:01 am

Egghead,

I’m definitely in strong agreement that we need such a Handbook for refuting the major Islamic propaganda apologetics. We should have had one within a year after the 2001, 9/11 attacks. Some of us even tried to start to produce one, years ago, but we found that our day jobs, studies, etc. did not afford us enough time and resources to get very far on it. I’ve done a lot of research on Islam over the years and have put together several draft rebuttals of major apologetics myself, constructed a template/scheme for the format and content, and so on, but, aside from a few articles I’ve had published, and informal comments on Jihadwatch etc., ultimately this work remains in a delayed stage of development, and perhaps should be done by, or with the involvement of, experts if possible. (WikiIslam has a grass-roots version of a similar project. The ReligionofPeace.com site also has something similar). Still, I work on my rebuttal articles when I have time.

But as for Hesperado’s publishing of other people’s comments and files, etc., including quite rough material, that’s a different matter. It can be done easily without misrepresenting people’s work. As far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t have had a problem with his above attempt at presenting my work if he’d quoted me correctly and provided a link to the original comment (or better yet, to my finished essay, which was already published) in the first place. After my comment above, he has at least grudgingly provided the original link in the article above. However, for some strange reason he refuses to restore the quotation marks that he removed, which distinguish my words from the Answering-Islam quote. (He also appears to have modified the Answering-Islam quote). He also shows a strange defiance in response to my comment above, as if he thinks proper quotation and attribution, etc. , are irrelevant, trivial details. For this type of project, where he is featuring other people’s work and calling it “The Hesperado Files”, though, proper quotation and attribution are of central importance to the entire enterprise. Since he doesn’t seem to be concerned about presenting my work accurately, and indeed mocks and dismisses such concerns, I’ve told him to leave my work out of this.

5 Hesperado September 11, 2012 at 5:05 am

Hi Egghead,

Actually, if someone took a comment I had posted at Jihad Watch comments and plopped it on their blog and changed about 4 or 5 relatively minor things, I wouldn’t mind as much as Archimedes is minding. At most, I would simply deposit a comment there explaining, for the benefit of readers, the few things that have been altered.

If, however, someone did that to a formal essay of mine from the Hesperado I might mind a little more. And if they changed a whole lot of things — big things, not just fluffy stuff like I did here unrelated to substance — I’d begin to approach the OCD anxiety of Archimedes.

And when they take the trouble to explain why they are being relatively sloppy (in minor ways) about the republication — as I have done here in my main intro, in a comment in response to Archimedes here, and in yet another comment over at my Hesperado blog — I’d probably understand and cut them slack.

For the most part, though, as you say, I’d appreciate the fact that someone is re-posting my stuff and attributing my name to it, and I doubt I’d get my knickers in a bunch. I only do that for important stuff — like actual content, substance, methodology.

6 Hesperado September 11, 2012 at 5:09 am

P.S.:

I assume that a comment in a comments thread at a public forum on the Net is up for grabs to be copy-pasted somewhere else on the Net — particularly when the author’s name is specifically cited in the introduction to that reposting. Who in their right mind would assume otherwise?

7 Hesperado September 11, 2012 at 5:55 am

Should any readers dip into the comments here and wonder what the hell these comments have to do with my article: The comments pertained to a completely different article I had posted, attributing it properly to its author — who, speak of the devil — surfaced after years of being unseen on comments threads and started complaining like a little girl with a boo-boo on her wittle finger. I tried to reason with him to show him his concerns were not as direly consequential as he strutted and fretted, but of course he persisted. So I decided to scrap the whole thing and proceed with my project — whose raison d’etre I explain in my introduction above — moving on with another installment.

8 Hesperado September 11, 2012 at 6:19 am

Archimedes wrote of my original article (no longer there as the reader can see) — to pick one wrongheaded thing out of a tissue of misreadings and miscomprehensions:

“He also shows a strange defiance in response to my comment above, as if he thinks proper quotation and attribution, etc. , are irrelevant, trivial details.”

I don’t show “strange” defiance to proper attribution in principle — just in this one unique case of a person unloading his crate-full of old dusty pieces of information he has been storing up in the cellar. This isn’t a peer-reviewed journal; and my Introduction makes clear the context by which such punctilious attribution is not pertinent.

The only thing “strange” is the obtuse stubbornness of Archimedes (and his other nicknames) to appreciate differences of context and degree explained to him in detail, often repeteadly.

9 archimedes September 11, 2012 at 6:29 am

Hesperado wrote: “I assume that a comment in a comments thread at a public forum on the Net is up for grabs to be copy-pasted somewhere else on the Net — particularly when the author’s name is specifically cited in the introduction to that reposting. Who in their right mind would assume otherwise?”

You didn’t copy-paste it. You modified the wording, and removed quotation marks in the original comment that distinguished my writing from that of another author I quoted. Again, if you’d just posted an accurate rendering, whether quote or summary, and the original links, in the first place, there would have been no problem. Instead, you refused to make a few corrections such as restoring the original quotation marks and you insisted on dismissing my reasonable concerns about your presentation and use of my work.

10 Hesperado September 11, 2012 at 4:27 pm

What’s the term for that fallacy where someone seizes on an irrelevant mistake rather than seeing the relevance of the larger picture….?

In my haste, implying that I merely “copy-pasted” the Archimedes comment, I forgot to mention — in my last comment, that is — that I tweaked it in minor ways; though I had already mentioned that fact more than once, including in an updated addition to my Introduction in my main article. So that alone should have sufficed for any normal person (i.e., a non-Archimedes person).

So, as I say, after Archimedes initially complained, I added an explanatory sentence in my Introduction alerting the reader to the fact that I tweaked it in minor ways. To any normal person, that would have been sufficient (even if grudgingly so). And so my main point still stands: Who in their right mind would mind some comment copied from a public forum 7 years ago, then pasted with a few minor tweaks (tweaks that in fact arguably improved on the original wording, though left the substance untouched). Well, someone in their right mind might mind a *little*, but not to the morbid extent Archimedes does.

As for the quote marks, I found them distracting to the flow of comprehension, and I didn’t want to take up extra time figuring out how they fit, and possibly adding something parenthetical to clarify for the reader. The whole point of my project here is to get these dusty old pieces of information I’ve collected over the years out as quickly as possible, and let the reader dust them off and sand off the rough edges if they wish.

I.e., I provided enough “caveat lectors” to satisfy anyone with their heads screwed on straight (which apparently does not characterize Archimedes –and I should know, from past experience with his deranged obsessiveness whenever he has a bug up his ass about something he thinks I’ve done to him).

11 Egghead September 12, 2012 at 12:13 am

Archimedes: I absolutely agree with you about the importance of proper attribution.

Hesperado: I think that, at the insanely speedy rate that the West is ceding to Islam, proper attribution will be moot when the Arabs ensure that everyone is illiterate. All of these anti-Islam articles are going to disappear in the near future when the IOC-controlled United Nations is put in charge of the internet and forbids any Islamophobia (aka blasphemy against Islam).

P.S. Good file about the mosque! I do still want to read ALL of your files before it’s too late. :) Egghead

12 Hesperado September 12, 2012 at 2:39 am

Thanks Egghead. I have so many files, of such variety. I’m looking forward to publishing them too, as I haven’t seen most of them in years. That’s why I don’t want to spend too much time fussing over them.

It’s ironic that the very first one in my Word files happened to be titled “5-32″, which put it at the top of the alphabetical list, before the letter “A” — and that it happened to be an essay by the one person in the Counterjihad who is OCD enough to notice and then care past the point of normal reason — thus causing me more time than I wanted to — precisely NOT the point of my series! Hopefully the remainder will be attached to normal writers; and I will keep my eyes peeled for any that remotely hint of having been written by Archimedes under any of his nicknames, and will fling them away from me as alacritously as if they were venomous scorpions on gasoline fire in my hands.

Leave a Comment

{ 7 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: