Since I said I was going to let Robert Spencer have the final response, go here and check it out. However, as with most debates of this type I do have to respond so with Mr. Spencer's permission I will make a few more points.

With respect to the gates of ijtihad being closed, Mr. Spencer merely cites me to a Muslim author -- Ziauddin Sardar -- who believes that the gates of ijtihad were closed. However, this doesn't prove that the gates were closed, only that there is another opinion besides Hallaq's. We already knew that. Irshad Manji also thinks that the gates were closed. Dr. Sherman Jackson and Dr. Muhammad Fadel do not. My point in bringing up the gates discussion was to show that Mr. Spencer himself constantly affirms the existence of Islamic Reform and legal evolution while saying that the gates of ijtihad were closed. He never addressed that inconsistency.

Anyway, Mr. Spencer concludes with this:

Above all, he has failed either to demonstrate that anything I have written is inaccurate, or to produce even one Islamic jurist who teaches that Muslims should coexist peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis, without striving for the domination the chap in the picture wishes for. He has not produced any non-supremacist schools of Islamic law. More's the pity.

In the comments section of his site I responded with a question that was posed to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, one of he most popular Pakistani jurists today:

Question: My question concerns the following verse of the Qur’an:

O ye who believe! Fight the disbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him. (9:123)

Should we just start fighting with the unbelievers on the basis of this verse?

Answer: Each Qur’anic verse has a perspective and a context and must be understood accordingly. The verse referred to and other verses of similar meaning are directed at the immediate addressees of a Prophet (Rasul) and have no bearing on us.

I found this example in 2 minutes. It's not my fault Mr. Spencer doesn't want to spend the time browsing for such stuff.

Here is another jurist, Shehzad Saleem also arguing that jihad theory is dead in Islamic Law:

First and foremost, only an Islamic state has the authority to wage Jihad. No independent group or organization has the right to launch an armed struggle in any way.

Secondly, after the departure of the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta), the only legitimate reason for an Islamic State to wage Jihad is to curb oppression and persecution in another country – whether Muslim or non-Muslim. 

"Curb oppression and persecution" is analogous to "just war" and "humanitarian intervention." Even we in the U.S. believe in that. 

With respect to vese 9:29 of the Quran, Dr. Moiz Amjad, another jurist, says this:

[It] should be quite clear that the referred verse of Surah Al-Taubah relates particularly to the Ahl-e-Kitaab - the Jews and the Christians - of Arabia, who were the direct addressees of the call of the last messenger of God.

Dr. Amjad is saying that the permission to engage in Jihad against unbelievers ended with the death of the Prophet because after his death every future generation of non Muslims and unbelievers were NOT the direct addressees of the Quran.

The fact remains that Dr. Spencer didn't find any mainstream jurists today who do prescribe jihad against the unbeliever like I asked him. His sole argument was based on the Reliance of the Traveler, a jurisprudence manual from the 9th century. He must think a lot of this book since he has now mentioned in four different pieces of writings. However, I addressed this pretty conclusively already:

However, I came to learn that the Reliance is itself a translation of a mideival tretise of law. Mr. Spencer, as was also true for me, probably does not understand the way Muslim jurists use treatieses of law: the treatises often provide the "black letter of the law" which in many cases is then rejected in commentary as inapplicable due to changed circumstances. It is kind of like how in American law students are taught the common law Rule Against Perpetuities from many centuries ago even though most states legislate their own version of the Rule which has nothing to do with the old school Rule Against Perpetuities. In other words, Al-Azhar certified the Reliance conscious of the fact that today’s jurists would reject it as inapplicable because rulings are no longer valid.

Yet, instead of refuting my reply Mr. Spencer wanted me to provide more evidence.

Provide examples, please, of jurists rejecting Reliance's "black letter of the law" about how the umma, under the leadership of the caliph, must make war "upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax." Not just rejecting modern jihadists on the basis of the fact that there is no caliph, as do Akiti and Iftikhar, but also rejecting the whole concept -- the idea that under any circumstances there should be war against unbelievers in order to impose Islamic law upon them.

Mr. Spencer more evidence lies in this: there are no mainstream jurists calling for jihad against unbelievers. No one is citing the Reliance for its propositions on jihad. Who cares if the Reliance exists if it is not cited? When jurists don't cite a book, or follow its prescriptions, Mr. Spencer, that is considered obvious proof of the fact that it carries no weight today. Mr. Spencer, what are you going to say to that? Cite to the Reliance for the fifth time? The Reliance is not a jurist. It is just a book from many centuries ago that sits in the library at al-Azhar.

We can keep playing this game all night. Update [2007-3-4 19:37:55 by Ali Eteraz]: But I'm not going to.

Related in Chronological Order:

Problems With JihadWatch Editorial In Emory University Student Newspaper

D'Souza KO's Robert Spencer

JihadWatch Director Misrepresents Ali Eteraz

Robert Spencer's Inconsistency, Substantive Response 

Dialogue With JihadWatch Commentator

Spencer's Final