New book on Muhammed

[cestusdei]

False, they come from your hadith and earliest histories. Show me where they are false.

Here is another Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf. See Buhhari 369.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Pointing out that a man who claims to be educating people on history, has no historical credentials and isn’t even capable of reading the sources he uses in their original language, is not an “attack on the man.”

It’s pointing out the obvious: that reading his books on history are a waste of time.

Well, it is up to his critics to point out where he’s gone wrong with the ‘translation’ issue. Other than that, you are just pissing in the wind.

 

[pro_universal]

False, they come from your hadith and earliest histories. Show me where they are false.

Here is another Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf. See Buhhari 369.

Buhhari 369 isn’t a citation.

There are thousands and thousands of texts like the hadiths. Many of them are not regarded as true by Muslims.

You simply failed on this point, cestusdei. You realize that quoting original sources can be done wrongly, and that Rev. Spencer is not a credible historian.

Taking an example of two things from answering-islam and then claiming he’s right about them does not prove your point, and on top of it, the assertion isn’t even correct in the first place.

Rodrigo Bivar and Rev. Spencer have a lot in common. They are both polemicists, uneducated in Islamic studies, who write for an agenda, not for scholarly purposes.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Geez thanks for your vote of confidence. The readers can see my knowledge of Islam is not such that I have been proven wrong when I use Islamic sources to evidence my claims.

I’m also unsure of your use of the word ‘polemicist’ to imply a negative connotation. Further, I think of myself as an ‘anti-polemicist’ as I love debunking Islamic polemics.

I rather think you’re trying to hoodwink the readers here into believing that only Shaykhs, Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs have the right to write about Islam. That, my friend, would present a biased view. Let us hear from the other side.

 

[cestusdei]

Look them up for yourself pro. I looked up Bukhari myself. It’s right there. You don’t refute it you just deny it. That isn’t the same thing. I am the one who gave specifics.

 

[pro_universal]

Look them up for yourself pro. I looked up Bukhari myself. It’s right there. You don’t refute it you just deny it. That isn’t the same thing. I am the one who gave specifics.

You gave specifically bogus info that you can’t even cite, because you didn’t get it from the sources.

Now, why can’t you just answer my question?

Is it possible to use original sources badly, to construct a biased and inaccurate picture?

Second,

What do you think of Carl Ernst’s comment on Rev. Spencer?

 

[cestusdei]

Oh I see back to the “give me the citation” and then when I do you will ignore it and change the subject again to distract us from the fact that I was right. We’ve been there before.

Bukhari Book 5 vol 59 Hadith 369

Another was Sallam ibn Abu al-Huq. Muhammed seemed addicted to killing folks he didn’t like. Compare that to Jesus.

Al-Tabari vol 8

There, do I need to hold your hand too? I give facts as Spencer does. All you do is deny and try to divert attention. It is so obvious.

 

[pro_universal]

Oh I see back to the “give me the citation” and then when I do you will ignore it and change the subject again to distract us from the fact that I was right. We’ve been there before.

Bukhari Book 5 vol 59 Hadith 369

Another was Sallam ibn Abu al-Huq. Muhammed seemed addicted to killing folks he didn’t like. Compare that to Jesus.

Al-Tabari vol 8

There, do I need to hold your hand too? I give facts as Spencer does. All you do is deny and try to divert attention. It is so obvious.

Sorry, but neither of those sources says WHY the people were killed.

Why didn’t you answer the question?

 

[cestusdei]

Sure they do. Muslims don’t hide it. You act as if they are ashamed of Muhammeds record of murder. They are not. They are proud he killed these people. That’s why they justify killing poets or cartoonists who say anything bad about Muhammed. This is Spencers point. Because Muhammed did it, it must be good, and we should do it today. This explains why Muslims feel it is virtuous to murder Van Gogh and others like him. Spencer is correct and frankly most Muslims would agree. That’s why they never feel any apology is necessary for such murders. See how it works? You should read the book.

 

[pro_universal]

Sure they do. Muslims don’t hide it. You act as if they are ashamed of Muhammeds record of murder. They are not. They are proud he killed these people. That’s why they justify killing poets or cartoonists who say anything bad about Muhammed. This is Spencers point. Because Muhammed did it, it must be good, and we should do it today. This explains why Muslims feel it is virtuous to murder Van Gogh and others like him. Spencer is correct and frankly most Muslims would agree. That’s why they never feel any apology is necessary for such murders. See how it works? You should read the book.

I’m looking at them right now, and not they don’t.

Why are you dodging the question? What are you afraid of giving away in your answer?

 

[cestusdei]

Then you must be on the wrong page. Nothing there about murder? Heck try wikipedia. They have links. I have to hold your hand and guide you or what? Ever hear of google? There are so many ways to find this stuff you have to try and not find it. I will answer your question when you answer the ones I have put to you.

Btw, check out the thread on the Sheikh who converted. You will love that one. Lot’s of links for you. Warning: will contradict your view of Islam.

 

[pro_universal]

Then you must be on the wrong page. Nothing there about murder? Heck try wikipedia. They have links. I have to hold your hand and guide you or what? Ever hear of google? There are so many ways to find this stuff you have to try and not find it. I will answer your question when you answer the ones I have put to you.

Btw, check out the thread on the Sheikh who converted. You will love that one. Lot’s of links for you. Warning: will contradict your view of Islam.

How come you can’t answer the question?

I see all this typing, but no answer. I already answered your questions.

If you have more, ask away and I’ll answer. But you should answer mine in the meantime.

 

[cestusdei]

I have asked you several questions. For example show me where Spencer got it wrong. You have not. However, I showed you where he got something right. Of course I have the advantage having read the book. Something you will never do. So my challenge stands. Show me. You can also comment on my point of Spencers thesis and try to prove that wrong. Please do.

PS: I am answering your question by showing Spencer was right. Didn’t you notice that? He is trustworthy because what he wrote was true. If it is not then again, show me.

www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

 

[pro_universal]

I have asked you several questions. For example show me where Spencer got it wrong. You have not.

I just posted the comment by a real scholar on Spencer’s credibility. Spencer claims to “expose the real Islam” with sources; in reality, he’s got zero authority to speak on this whatsoever.

However, I showed you where he got something right. Of course I have the advantage having read the book. Something you will never do. So my challenge stands. Show me. You can also comment on my point of Spencers thesis and try to prove that wrong. Please do.

No you didn’t. The hadiths do not say why these people were killed.

PS: I am answering your question by showing Spencer was right. Didn’t you notice that? He is trustworthy because what he wrote was true. If it is not then again, show me.

And I posted a comment by a scholar in the field who says he is not at all credible.

Now, why can’t you answer my questions?

 

[cestusdei]

I don’t find your scholar credible. I don’t care how many degrees he has. Carl isn’t Muslim, so he can’t comment on it. See, I am using your logic here. Go to jihadwatch and on September 1st there is an essay about him. Spencer challenged him to a debate and Carl declined. He could not point out though where Spencer was wrong. Spencer himself, if you follow my helpful link, answers your question himself. Just scroll down. I will let him answer as he does better then I would.

Carl’s books leave out some of the “details” of Muhammeds life. Likewise if you remember the Sell’s controversy at UNC? The freshman all had to read a sanitized version of the quran. Carl was in favor of that even though he knew it left out the most important parts. So you need to defend your scholar. Good luck.

 

[pro_universal]

cestusdei,

I rest my case. You are clearly unable to answer my questions, and you resort to farce and hyperbole like always.

When you can answer my questions directly, I’ll come back to your ranting.

 

[cestusdei]

I did indeed answer it. I also provided you the link where Spencer himself answers exactly that question. In addition I showed you where Spencer was right and you were wrong. Finally you were unable to show one place where he was mistaken in the book. Game, set, match.

 

[pro_universal]

I did indeed answer it. I also provided you the link where Spencer himself answers exactly that question. In addition I showed you where Spencer was right and you were wrong. Finally you were unable to show one place where he was mistaken in the book. Game, set, match.

Ah yes, so the head of a Department dedicated to studying the middle east at a respectable university is not as credible as Reverend Robert Spencer (MA religious studies) on jihadwatch.

No one debunks his books because no one takes them seriously in the academic world. He’s a sideshow, not a participant in the debate.

Note the complete and total lack of specific answers to my questions. You get more and more frustrated, and less coherent every time you post here.

I repost my questions here, and await (not with any expectation, of course) an answer:

Is it possible to use original sources badly, to construct a biased and inaccurate picture?

Second,

What do you think of Carl Ernst’s comment on Rev. Spencer?

 

[cestusdei]

Carl is wrong. I have been to plenty of universities. I have met profs with phd’s who raved about the vegan lifestyle, slept with coeds, were avowed marxists, or basically loons. Carl has been coopted by the terrorists. A useful idiot as Lenin would say. He reminds me of the Christian clergy who applauded when visiting the old USSR and viewed churches turned into atheist museums.

What did you think of Spencer’s opinion of him? And what do you think of Spencers defense of his work? Follow the link I gave you. Consider it homework. Daniel Pipes seems to like Spencers work.

 

[pro_universal]

Carl is wrong. I have been to plenty of universities. I have met profs with phd’s who raved about the vegan lifestyle, slept with coeds, were avowed marxists, or basically loons.

Okay, let me get this straight: pointing out that Rev. Spencer has no credentials in history IS an ad hominem attack, but you claiming that because there are vegans on uni campuses, Carl Ernst must be wrong, is not???

I seriously doubt that you’ve spent much time on a university campus. Education usually shows in people’s thoughts.

Carl has been coopted by the terrorists. A useful idiot as Lenin would say. He reminds me of the Christian clergy who applauded when visiting the old USSR and viewed churches turned into atheist museums.

Please show me one shred of evidence that Carl Ernst has been “coopted by terrorists.”

If you cannot do this, apologize for the slanderous accusation.

What did you think of Spencer’s opinion of him? And what do you think of Spencers defense of his work? Follow the link I gave you. Consider it homework.

Spencer has no opinion of him, and I think Robert Spencer has no credentials that would justify his speaking on Ernst’s work. That’s a fact you can’t dispute…Spencer has no credentials to be in this debate.

Now, where’s the answer to question number 1?