New book on Muhammed

[amoxoxoma]

I’m glad to see your charity has grown so much that you contribute to the debate instead of just making a snide remark.

I guess now that I’m not Catholic, I just can’t make Christ present in the world like you can.

You apparently think there is a veneer of charity in your own constant refrain

“Read the article. Maybe it’s difficult for you, … only shows that you either did not or cannot read the article”,

but I fail to see it. God knows I’m far from perfect. Thanks for pointing out where I need to grow!

The debate in this thread should be about “What specifically does Spencer say in his book that is untrue?” Actually, I’m waiting for my copy to arrive so I can see for myself how he’s used all those quotes from the Quran and hadith inappropriately. How about you?

 

[cestusdei]

pro, you just got royally slammed. I look forward to your responding to all the points made against you. Likewise I am delighted that you and Spencer now agree.

 

[amoxoxoma]

That man “without credentials” has a blurb on his site about a new website - mahdiwatch.org/index.html

The site belongs to a Timothy R. Furnish, PhD in Islamic History, arabic speaker, who has a very interesting article here: hnn.us/articles/16536.html called the 7 Myths of Islam

here’s another one hnn.us/articles/29162.html in which he says the term “Islamic fascism” shouldn’t be used. Here’s why -

In the final analysis, then, “Islamic fascism” or “Islamofascism” is a term that should be dropped from our political lexicon. But what could replace it? With whom are we are at war? Islamic fundamentalists? Too unwieldy. Islamists? Confusing to non-specialists. Caliphists? Again, too specialized. Perhaps **the best term is one that has already gained some resonance: Jihadists. It’s short, it’s descriptively accurate and even CAIR—although it will try—won’t be able to convince the American public that jihadists are simply mundane Muslims struggling to be pious. **

 

[amoxoxoma]

There’s one of those on the first page also. Spencer claims that Islam commands violence to spread Islam. I posted two links that thoroughly debunk that position.

In any case, it’s possible to use original sources badly, remember? Quoting the bible doesn’t mean you are actually correct about what Christians believe. Same with this.

OBTW, that quote from Spencer’s website you condemned…

On his website, he states: “In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.””

In fact, Islam contains no such command.

you didn’t say where you got it so I did a search on the site. Look what I found here: jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002622.php

A little quiz. Ready, Dave? Who said this: “…in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Got to have been that heretic Ibn Taymiyya, right? Wrong. **It was Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), **the pioneering sociologist who has, for a complex of reasons, become a kind of totem for the democracy movement in Egypt and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

and here: jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000768.php

Muslim jurists have constructed an elaborate legal edifice that is without parallel in any other major religion: a codified, detailed mass of laws for the conduct of warfare in the name of God. **Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), **the pioneering historian and philosopher, puts it this way: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

This is the traditional understanding of jihad that radical Muslims worldwide are operating upon.

and here: jihadwatch.org/archives/012099.php

** Excerpts from, Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah; an introduction to history, translated from the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, New York, Pantheon Books, 1958, pp. 473,480. **“**In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the mission and convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united , so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. It has thus come about that the person in charge of religious affairs is not concerned with power politics at all. , royal authority comes to those who have it, by accident and in some way that has nothing to do with religion. It comes to them as the necessary result of group feeling, which by its very nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as we have mentioned before, and not because they are under obligation to gain power over other nations, as is the case with Islam. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own .

That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority for about four hundred years. Their only concern was to establish their religion.

Thereafter, there were dissensions among the Christians with regard to their religion and to Christology. They split into groups and sects, which secured the support of the various Christian rulers against each other. At different times there appeared different sects. Finally, these sects crystallized into three groups, which constitute the sects. Others have no significance. These are the Melchites, the Jacobites, and the Nestorians. We do not think that we should blacken the pages of this book with discussion of their dogmas of unbelief. In general, they are well known. All of them are unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Qur’an. discuss or argue those things with them is not upto us. **It is conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death."] **

…continued

 

[amoxoxoma]

… continued

and it is quoted in all these selections: jihadwatch.org/archives/008053.php
jihadwatch.org/archives/008038.php
jihadwatch.org/archives/003132.php
jihadwatch.org/archives/000250.php

Which one of these articles did you claim to have read when you made that quote back on page 1 of this thread? Perhaps you should go back and actually read them. Isn’t it interesting that it wasn’t Spencer’s claim about Islam, but rather it is the learned opinion of a well-respected Muslim writing 600 years ago who said all that. You see, Spencer isn’t making this up - he’s quoting Muslim sources. :yup:

 

[pro_universal]

… continued

and it is quoted in all these selections: jihadwatch.org/archives/008053.php
jihadwatch.org/archives/008038.php
jihadwatch.org/archives/003132.php
jihadwatch.org/archives/000250.php

Which one of these articles did you claim to have read when you made that quote back on page 1 of this thread? Perhaps you should go back and actually read them. Isn’t it interesting that it wasn’t Spencer’s claim about Islam, but rather it is the learned opinion of a well-respected Muslim writing 600 years ago who said all that. You see, Spencer isn’t making this up - he’s quoting Muslim sources. :yup:

The point was that you can quote sources badly to present a biased, distorted view.

This thread is going the way all the others are. Anything that interferes with hatred for Islam, “untrue, the product of Muslims only.”

Anything that confirms bias against Islam: “prove it wrong!”

There’s really no debate here. The fact that Spencer uses (and advertises using, that tells you about his target audience) original sources adds precisely zero to his credibility. Jack Chick uses Catholic sources too…does that make him right?

There’s only been on credible counter-claim here, by a no-name history professor from Georgia, and even then, it’s not an article that supports Spencer’s claims.

 

[Montalban]

Gregory Palamus said “For these impious people, hated by God and infamous, boast of having got the better of the Romans by their love of God…they live by the bow, the sword and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil…and not only do they commit these crimes, but even – what an aberration – they believe that God approves of them. This is what I think of them, now that I know precisely about their way of life.”
Quoted by Andrew Bostom at
frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24999

What do you mean “might”?

Spencer said violence was a key feature of Islam. You confirmed it by showing that in Islam you’ve a ‘right’ to attack even when there’s no immediate threat.

Christians operated this way also in medieval times, and it wasn’t because they didn’t know their religion.

People do things despite their beliefs all the time. You’ve yet to show any causal link between the teachings of Christ and this violence. Please do so.

Imperial states are a threat to the states around them.

Although you’re now attempting at distraction, I’ll indulge this for a while. Clearly the answer to you is “no:. You’re mixing ‘imperial’ with ‘imperialism’. Imperial refers to that pertaining to having an empire. Imperialistic refers to the idea of expanding an empire.

And to this…how many times had the Roman empire invaded Arabia? When was the most recent attempt at conquest?

The Roman frontier from the time of Hadrian to the 400s had more or less been stable in large parts of the empire. Such is the case in northern Britain, where Hadrian’s Wall marked out the limit of empire for the most part of that time-period. It thus continued to be ‘imperial’, but not an empire of imperialism

Did the Visigothic kingdoms in Spain and North Africa get there by accident or a vote? No…they expanded and rooted out Roman Christians (or rather, enslaved some and let the rest assimilate).

So you’re now arguing that non-Christians took over Spain violently and this is the same as in Islam? Are you saying that Islam offers the same type of ethos as heretical Christians and pagans?

You might be interested to know that the Goths in North Africa had been ravaged and subdued by Roman Christians long before the Muslims got there, and that most north African Christians actually wanted Muslim rule (it meant they could practice Christianity how they wanted, not how the Emperor wanted.)

I know about the Visigothic kingdoms. They were Arian Christians (heretics). They were attacked under Justinian who hoped to re-gain parts of the Empire that they’d over-taken. You can read Procopius’ history of the era.

However returning to the issue (as you attempts at being besides the point don’t take away from the fact that you’ve shown that Islam attacks, even when not immediately threatened, you’ve yet to draw any links between Christian teaching and violence. In my own Orthodox church any priest who took up arms was kicked out of the priesthood.

If you want to state that many peoples are also violent then you are proposing that violence is the natural order. This is what the Pope said about your attitudes towards your god. And their was violent outcry against him. You have a god that hates peace (except manifest as forced submission).

But then you hope to be arguing the opposite at the same time. Funny that! True Islam.

You seem unsure as to whether you want to argue that violence is a part of Islam, or that it is in a more exclusive sense. You deny that it is part of Islam, but then also argue that it’s in Islam, but in other societies too.

Given that you’ve shown no link between Christianity and violence, as opposed to ‘Christians’ and violence, you’ve not made any point at all.

All you need to do is formulate the argument you wish to have. Are you saying that violence in inherit in all man, including in Islam?

 

[pro_universal]

Spencer said violence was a key feature of Islam. You confirmed it by showing that in Islam you’ve a ‘right’ to attack even when there’s no immediate threat.

Okay, you keep claiming this, but the sources I posted say exactly the opposite. So I have no clue where you are getting this.

People do things despite their beliefs all the time. You’ve yet to show any causal link between the teachings of Christ and this violence. Please do so.

How is Christianity relevant here?

And to this…how many times had the Roman empire invaded Arabia? When was the most recent attempt at conquest?

They were paying Ghassanid tribesmen just prior to the end of the Persian war to fight Arabs.

So you’re now arguing that non-Christians took over Spain violently and this is the same as in Islam? Are you saying that Islam offers the same type of ethos as heretical Christians and pagans?

Uh, no. Are you really stretching to get something out of my comments and not reading them in the process? Yes.

Christians conquered Spain and North Africa violently. Muslims did it again later on.

I know about the Visigothic kingdoms. They were Arian Christians (heretics). They were attacked under Justinian who hoped to re-gain parts of the Empire that they’d over-taken. You can read Procopius’ history of the era.

I have read Procopius’s history of that era (and his “Secret History” that isn’t really a secret.) Notice the key word in your post: “attacked.”

That’s what states did at this time, they attacked each other.

You seem unsure as to whether you want to argue that violence is a part of Islam, or that it is in a more exclusive sense. You deny that it is part of Islam, but then also argue that it’s in Islam, but in other societies too.

Read the links.

All you need to do is formulate the argument you wish to have. Are you saying that violence in inherit in all man, including in Islam?

What I’m saying is that violence for self-defense is permitted in Islam, and self-defense for all mankind has taken different forms over the centuries. In an era of imperial states, every state is a threat to its neighbors, and to hold one of many such states responsible for violence but not the others would be silly.

The traditions of limitations on warfare and violence in Islam are similar to Catholic traditions of the just war.

The claim that Islam commands its followers to subdue everyone else, and that people who don’t do this aren’t good muslims, is just nutty.

 

[Montalban]

The point was that you can quote sources badly to present a biased, distorted view.

Yes, you can. That’s called a ‘truism’.

So far the summary of rebuttals have been

• evading direct questions
• truisms
• ad homs

This thread is going the way all the others are. Anything that interferes with hatred for Islam, “untrue, the product of Muslims only.”

You mean “Anything that is critical of Islam is hurtful of Islam, and therefore wrong”

Anything that confirms bias against Islam: “prove it wrong!”

There’s really no debate here. The fact that Spencer uses (and advertises using, that tells you about his target audience) original sources adds precisely zero to his credibility.

Oh, and

• just-so statements.

Jack Chick uses Catholic sources too…does that make him right?

Again missing the point of the thread.

There’s only been on credible counter-claim here, by a no-name history professor from Georgia, and even then, it’s not an article that supports Spencer’s claims.

So you say.

You’ve been shown to argue against yourself by acknowledging that in Islam you can attack even when not immediately threatened.

 

[pro_universal]

Talk about hopeless.

Have fun hating Islam folks.

I’ve decided it’s a better use of my time to spend it reading about Islam than to try and figure out how combat bigotry against Islam. It’s clear that none of you will allow any facts to get in the way of your preconceptions.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Spencer said violence was a key feature of Islam. You confirmed it by showing that in Islam you’ve a ‘right’ to attack even when there’s no immediate threat.

pro_universal:

Okay, you keep claiming this, but the sources I posted say exactly the opposite. So I have no clue where you are getting this.

I’m saying what you yourself said. You said that they were imperial states that were at war with each other, but you suggested that imperial states, of their nature threaten their neighbours. So even though these states weren’t an immediate threat, they were a potential threat.

Montalban:

People do things despite their beliefs all the time. You’ve yet to show any causal link between the teachings of Christ and this violence. Please do so.

pro_universal:

How is Christianity relevant here?

You’ve yet to show that it is. It’s your claim at a relativist defence of Islam. Not only are you confused about what you said (above), now you’re not even sure which side of the debate you’re on.

Montalban:

And to this…how many times had the Roman empire invaded Arabia? When was the most recent attempt at conquest?

pro_universal:

They were paying Ghassanid tribesmen just prior to the end of the Persian war to fight Arabs.

So you’re argument is that the Roman empire was a threat to Islamic Arabia because Christian Arabs allied with Rome against Persia and fighting the Persians but did so by also fighting the Islamic Arabs? Independent Christian Arabic phylarchs were expanding Roman territory? Harith ibn Jabalah had the intent of conqueoring all of Isalmic Arabia?
Where’s your evidence?
You must note that this tribe defected to Islam because the Christians coulnd’t pay them anything! (Such was the ‘might’ of Rome)

Montalban:

So you’re now arguing that non-Christians took over Spain violently and this is the same as in Islam? Are you saying that Islam offers the same type of ethos as heretical Christians and pagans?

pro_universal:

Uh, no. Are you really stretching to get something out of my comments and not reading them in the process? Yes.

Christians conquered Spain and North Africa violently. Muslims did it again later on.

Then again you agree that Islam acted violently. Nice of you to agree again with Spencer. What threat did these North Africans pose to Islam.

All you need do is show that the violence enacted by the Christians there is endemic to Christianity

Montalban:

I know about the Visigothic kingdoms. They were Arian Christians (heretics). They were attacked under Justinian who hoped to re-gain parts of the Empire that they’d over-taken. You can read Procopius’ history of the era.

pro_universal:

I have read Procopius’s history of that era (and his “Secret History” that isn’t really a secret.) Notice the key word in your post: “attacked.”

That’s what states did at this time, they attacked each other.

I noticed my own words as I choose to use them. I notice you’ve not caught on to the problem of your argument in attacking Spencer. He says that violence is a central part of Islam. You agree that Islam has attacked. Then you disagree, then in this post you agree again.
You still need to show causal links between Christianity and violence. If you can’t then we can say that these people were violent DESPITE Christianity. We’ve already established that Moslems are violent BECAUSE of Islam, which is what Spencer said, which is what you both agree and then disagree with.
The Secret History is his whinge against all, especially because he put a lot of faith in Belisarius.
You seem unsure as to whether you want to argue that violence is a part of Islam, or that it is in a more exclusive sense. You deny that it is part of Islam, but then also argue that it’s in Islam, but in other societies too.

pro_universal:

Read the links.

Montalban:

All you need to do is formulate the argument you wish to have. Are you saying that violence in inherit in all man, including in Islam?

pro_universal:

What I’m saying is that violence for self-defense is permitted in Islam, and self-defense for all mankind has taken different forms over the centuries. In an era of imperial states, every state is a threat to its neighbors, and to hold one of many such states responsible for violence but not the others would be silly.

But for Islam ‘self-defence’ equals offence, even against people not your immediate enemy.

 

[Montalban]

pro_universal:

The traditions of limitations on warfare and violence in Islam are similar to Catholic traditions of the just war.

Cite the Catholic traditions

pro_universal:

The claim that Islam commands its followers to subdue everyone else, and that people who don’t do this aren’t good muslims, is just nutty.

jihad is a fard al-kifaya, that is, that one must begin the fight against the enemy, even when he [the enemy] may not have taken the initiative to fight, because the Prophet…early on…allowed believers to defend themselves, later, however, he ordered them to take the initiative at certain times of the year, that is, at the end of the haram months, saying, “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them…” (Q9:5).
He finally ordered fighting without limitations, at all times and in all places, saying, “Fight those who do not believe in God, and in the Last Day…”(Q9:29); there are also other [similar] verses on the subject. This shows that it is a fard al-kifaya

Andrew Bostom at
frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24999

 

[Montalban]

Talk about hopeless.

There’s still hope for you.

 

[pro_universal]

There’s still hope for you.

Maybe so, but not for this thread, or for actually having a discussion on Islam.

I do have personal hope for finding the truth about God, but I’m convinced it’s not the Church. I won’t be a party to an ideological assault on a people who are already losing their lives daily to military and economic attacks.

 

[Montalban]

Maybe so, but not for this thread, or for actually having a discussion on Islam.

I would consider that someone wants to have a discussion would show evidence of that, such as endeavouring to answer questions.

And not having a hissy-fit if people disagree with you.

I do have personal hope for finding the truth about God, but I’m convinced it’s not the Church.

I don’t believe in the Catholic Church either.

I won’t be a party to an ideological assault on a people who are already losing their lives daily to military and economic attacks.

Well you’ve yet to establish that the violence of Christians is caused by Christianity.

If you want discussion, all you need to do is to demonstrate that Islamic violence and Christian violence are comparable

And ostensibly they might seem the same.

If you shoot someone who’s attempting to kill you, and I shoot someone who’s just walking by my door we are both shooting someone but motives would separate us.

Islam is violent, as you have said, against people who aren’t even posing an immediate threat.

Violence by Christians is not connected to Christianity. (at least you’ve not demonstrated this).

Thus Spencer is correct.

You need to look at the Voice of the Martyrs site
persecution.com.au/

 

[cestusdei]

Hmmm…so 1400 years of Islamic aggression was all just a mistake? Muhammed never commanded it? What does that say about Islam? What does that say about anyone who buys into that? Quick inform the Emperor of Constantinople it was all just a mistake and the city will be returned to the greeks, Egypt to the copts, and Muslims will evacuate from Israel.

 

[amoxoxoma]

The point was that you can quote sources badly to present a biased, distorted view.

But the point is that even some of the evidence you site agrees with Spencer. The article from the Middle East Forum (Daniel Pipes & Co.) for example, discusses how off the mark the radical Islamists are.

This thread is going the way all the others are. Anything that interferes with hatred for Islam, “untrue, the product of Muslims only.”

Why do you say that? Because you were caught misquoting Spencer - attributing to him something a Muslim of great repute actually said?

There’s only been on credible counter-claim here, by a no-name history professor from Georgia, and even then, it’s not an article that supports Spencer’s claims.

If a PhD in Islamic History who can speak arabic still isn’t sufficient for you then nothing will be. You just can’t believe that reasonable people can come to a different conclusion than you. :banghead: IMHO, the article “7 Myths of Islam” certainly does support Spencer’s positions.

 

[pro_universal]

But the point is that even some of the evidence you site agrees with Spencer. The article from the Middle East Forum (Daniel Pipes & Co.) for example, discusses how off the mark the radical Islamists are.

Yeah, but Spencer doesn’t think they’re off the mark. Read his site.

Why do you say that? Because you were caught misquoting Spencer - attributing to him something a Muslim of great repute actually said?

It most certainly was Spencer’s quote. Paraphrasing what he claims to be the words of someone else is still Spencer speaking.

If a PhD in Islamic History who can speak arabic still isn’t sufficient for you then nothing will be. You just can’t believe that reasonable people can come to a different conclusion than you. :banghead: IMHO, the article “7 Myths of Islam” certainly does support Spencer’s positions.

Wait a minute, I linked you to a top player in the field and you said “He’s a Muslim apologist.”

Now you’re linking me to someone who, though an academic, doesn’t appear to be anyone in the field, and saying “oh, that’s proof!”

The article on the myths compares it to Christianity to point out that in the same way Christianity was used to justify violence, Islam can be used. That is not Spencer’s position.

There’s only one axiom of reasoning being used on this thread by you and cestusdei and montalban:

That which condemns islam is presumptively true, and that which does not condemn it is presumptively false.

Learning Islam from Muslims is the best decision I’ve made all year, and I can really see why so many of them are worried about American and European intentions for them in the future. If this sort of islamophobia from Rev. Spencer passes as “a reasonable conclusion”, we’re not too far from having a new “final solution” proposed.

Oh wait…Spencer and Fitzgerald (of Jihadwatch) already proposed it.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro,
Your PhD source only issued an ad hominem = opinion only.

amoxoxoma’s PhD source actually provided the evidence from Ibn Khaldun to back his case.

See the difference? No? I didn’t think you would.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Yeah, but Spencer doesn’t think they’re off the mark. Read his site.

“Read his site” LOL, that’s what you should do.
Granted, Spencer thinks that the positions taken by al Qaeda and the other modern so-called Jihadists, hark back to what they think is pure understanding of Islam so that all they need to justify their religio/political ideaology is found in the Islamic source books of Quran and hadith. He prays, as I do, that moderate muslims can help stop them from committing more acts of terrorism.

It most certainly was Spencer’s quote. Paraphrasing what he claims to be the words of someone else is still Spencer speaking.

You are quite mistaken. It wasn’t even a paraphrase, it was a direct quote from Ibn Khaldun and I gave you the links to each time he used it.

Wait a minute, I linked you to a top player in the field and you said “He’s a Muslim apologist.”

OK, I take that back. I have no idea if he has every written anything that could be considered an apologetic. But I’m not going to read all his books, but I’ll look for them in the library. Judging by thte titles I doubt that he’s written anything that’s been critical of Islam or Sufism. Cole and

Now you’re linking me to someone who, though an academic, doesn’t appear to be anyone in the field, and saying “oh, that’s proof!”

What do you mean “anyone in the field?” What does it take to join the club? He’s still young (though not as young as you.) He published a book based on his PhD dissertation. You wanted some credentials. (Why did a scene from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre just come to mind: you “Badges!? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinking badges!” :whacky: )

The article on the myths compares it to Christianity to point out that in the same way Christianity was used to justify violence, Islam can be used. That is not Spencer’s position.

Please point to the sentence that led you to that conclusion. It can’t be this one “From the mid-7th century CE Muslims militarily overran regions and then pressured the conquered to convert. (Yes, Christian kingdoms did the same—but, again, no one denies that!)” which says nothing about justification from religion

The only references to Christianity say this:

Islam is where Christianity was before the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and then the Enlightenment led the West to divorce religion and state, thereby removing (mostly) the threat of religious-based warfare

This is in harmony with Spencer’s opinion. As is the substance of the whole article: That Islam isn’t solely a religion of peace; that Jihad does in fact mean holy war; that Islam did not in fact spread peacefully; that terrorists are not a product of poverty but are frequently college educated and middle class; and most importantly that Islam has not been hijacked by the terrorists, but in fact UBL and the other’s view of their faith has a basis in Islamic theology and history.

There’s only one axiom of reasoning being used on this thread by you and cestusdei and montalban:

That which condemns islam is presumptively true, and that which does not condemn it is presumptively false.

No, that is EXACTLY your line of reasoning in reverse: Pros reasoning is this - That which criticizes Islam is presumptively false and that which doesn’t criticize it is presumptively true.

Learning Islam from Muslims is the best decision I’ve made all year, and I can really see why so many of them are worried about American and European intentions for them in the future. If this sort of islamophobia from Rev. Spencer passes as “a reasonable conclusion”, we’re not too far from having a new “final solution” proposed.

Oh wait…Spencer and Fitzgerald (of Jihadwatch) already proposed it.

Learning Islam from muslims is good, as long as it’s not UBL or the Taliban or Khameni or Hamas that you are learning it from.

Come now… please source this statement. Are you saying that Spencer and Fitzgerald have used that term, or have given approval for the genocide of muslims??? When you use the term “final solution” it can only be in reference to the genocide of the jews by the Nazis which was lovingly approved by Arafat’s mentor, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.