Robert Spencer?

[oldcatholicguy]

Public discourse takes many forms and us not limited to articles published in “peer-reviewed” journals. Your argument would be better served by less bluster, and more facts. Where does Spencer get it demonstrably wrong?

muslim-responses.com/Spencert/Spencert_
answering-christian-claims.com/Debunking_Robert_Spencers_Fantasies_about_Islam.html
loonwatch.com/2010/08/is-robert-spencer-a-scholar/ catholicworldreport.com/Item/1497/muhammad_man_or_myth.aspx

There you go. Four sites you can review to see where Mr. Spencer gets it wrong. And since this is, in your words “public discourse” and is “not limited to articles published in “peer-reviewed” journals” I’m quite sure you won’t make any sort of comment concerning obvious bias on the part of the sites/authors, lack of scholarly merit of the same, or any other type of comment along those lines. I would, but then again I’m apparently full of “bluster” with an unrealistic standard in regards to what can be considered a valid and or scholarly source. How exactly you are going to counter the conclusions found in the links I provided without adopting my apparently unrealistic standards (you know like pointing out their bias, lack of qualifications, sloppy research, selective responses, etc) is beyond me. But, I’m not the one who thinks public discourse equates to a form of intellectual relativism, so good luck.

 

[JHow]

muslim-responses.com/Spencert/Spencert_
answering-christian-claims.com/Debunking_Robert_Spencers_Fantasies_about_Islam.html
loonwatch.com/2010/08/is-robert-spencer-a-scholar/ catholicworldreport.com/Item/1497/muhammad_man_or_myth.aspx

There you go. Four sites you can review to see where Mr. Spencer gets it wrong. And since this is, in your words “public discourse” and is “not limited to articles published in “peer-reviewed” journals” I’m quite sure you won’t make any sort of comment concerning obvious bias on the part of the sites/authors, lack of scholarly merit of the same, or any other type of comment along those lines. I would, but then again I’m apparently full of “bluster” with an unrealistic standard in regards to what can be considered a valid and or scholarly source. How exactly you are going to counter the conclusions found in the links I provided without adopting my apparently unrealistic standards (you know like pointing out their bias, lack of qualifications, sloppy research, selective responses, etc) is beyond me. But, I’m not the one who thinks public discourse equates to a form of intellectual relativism, so good luck.

Hmm. “Mr F” is a hoot: “Spencer tries to market and seek profit from books” As Bugs Bunny used to say “Oh, Mur-der!”

I read the links, mostly ad-hominem, argument from authority, straw-man. Only the last is a serious argument, but the real trouble you (or most of his critics, apparently) have is that mostly what Spencer does is quote the “legitimate” sources that scholars (islamic and otherwise) recognize (for instance, some imam raving about “uncovered meat”). You really have only two responses: either said imam didn’t mean what he said (Spencer has mis-interpreted the text or quote), or that said imam or quote is not representative of the “real” islam.

When you spend most of your argument fretting over “credentials”, as links 1-3 do to various degrees, one starts to get the impression that you are short on substantive criticism. This is the internet, after all, readers have the patience of gnats. I might be convinced one day that Spencer is wrong abut this or that point, but not by a dainty “Spencer is no true scholar!” argument.

 

[GaryTaylor]

: According to the Muslim commentators I read, Islam forbids treachery even in war.

How do you define treachery in war? What’s treachery in war to you?

According to muslim sources? Where? Link your sources also.

 

[GaryTaylor]

muslim-responses.com/Spencert/Spencert_
answering-christian-claims.com/Debunking_Robert_Spencers_Fantasies_about_Islam.html
loonwatch.com/2010/08/is-robert-spencer-a-scholar/ catholicworldreport.com/Item/1497/muhammad_man_or_myth.aspx

There you go. Four sites you can review to see where Mr. Spencer gets it wrong. And since this is, in your words “public discourse” and is “not limited to articles published in “peer-reviewed” journals” I’m quite sure you won’t make any sort of comment concerning obvious bias on the part of the sites/authors, lack of scholarly merit of the same, or any other type of comment along those lines. I would, but then again I’m apparently full of “bluster” with an unrealistic standard in regards to what can be considered a valid and or scholarly source. How exactly you are going to counter the conclusions found in the links I provided without adopting my apparently unrealistic standards (you know like pointing out their bias, lack of qualifications, sloppy research, selective responses, etc) is beyond me. But, I’m not the one who thinks public discourse equates to a form of intellectual relativism, so good luck.

Loonwatch? You would call Spencer uneducated than post that? Then dismiss not one but three PHDs as bias? And all Islamic. Bias is right, on your part.

Post something from as you state “someone educated”

Here’s your list

Muslim response’s to Robert Spencer…no bias there, they never lie, or use treachery in war.

Loonwatch, no bias there

Debunking Robert Spencer, no bias there.

Answering Christian response’s. to debunk Robert Spencer.

You don’t want to find the truth, you arrived thinking you know it, then instead of searching with an open mind, you look to validate it?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Gary and JHow,

Apparently neither of you understood the challenge placed before you in my comment containing the 4 links that criticize Mr. Spencer. You can’t complain or comment upon the credibility, scholarly value, or bias of those links. Well you can, but first you would have to adopt my position and abandon yours. The credibility, scholarly value and bias of a source playing a factor in the value of that source is my position. One both of you have taken issue with in past comments on this thread.

You basically have two options-

1. Find a way to argue against those links without adopting my position
2. Adopt my position and, in the process of arguing against my links, argue against the value of your links as well

JHow,

As for Mr. Spencer using legit Islamic sources, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the sources he uses are legit. So what. Without applying those scholarly standards of methodology and research you seem to think are not necessary we have no clue if he is using those sources correctly. Ever run across someone misquoting the Bible (can’t argue with the legitimacy of that source) in order to prove a false point? I have. In fact, this type of misuse of a source has a term attached to it- cherry picking. Give me an excerpt of the McDonald’s employee handbook that covers employee hygiene (wash your hands after using the bathroom) and I can, by misquoting it, prove that McDonald’s is a ritual cleansing cult.

Lastly, I’m still waiting for either of you, or anyone for that matter, to address my point concerning the comparison of Mr. Spencer’s work and lack of qualifications with that of Mr. Dawkins. If one considers Mr. Spencer’s work valid, one has to logically consider Mr. Dawkins’s work as valid given the similarities between the two author’s qualifications and motivations.

 

[JHow]

No. I don’t have to play your game and admit your methods (which methods I haven’t used, BTW).

Spencer rose to fame as a blogger, not a scholar. If you think he is out to lunch, show where he gets it wrong. It should be easy to do, since he is not a scholar, right? But make it your words, your thought, and argue on the facts.

You have to admit, "Spencer seeks to profit from his books " is a dumb argument no?

 

[JHow]

PS: Your Dawkins challenge is a red herring. You are the one who mentioned Dawkins. You are the one making a connection between a supposed argument I might possibly make against Dawkins. You are arguing with yourself - hence no response from anyone here.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary and JHow,

Apparently neither of you understood the challenge placed before you in my comment containing the 4 links that criticize Mr. Spencer. You can’t complain or comment upon the credibility, scholarly value, or bias of those links. Well you can, but first you would have to adopt my position and abandon yours. The credibility, scholarly value and bias of a source playing a factor in the value of that source is my position. One both of you have taken issue with in past comments on this thread.

You basically have two options-

1. Find a way to argue against those links without adopting my position
2. Adopt my position and, in the process of arguing against my links, argue against the value of your links as well

JHow,

As for Mr. Spencer using legit Islamic sources, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the sources he uses are legit. So what. Without applying those scholarly standards of methodology and research you seem to think are not necessary we have no clue if he is using those sources correctly. Ever run across someone misquoting the Bible (can’t argue with the legitimacy of that source) in order to prove a false point? I have. In fact, this type of misuse of a source has a term attached to it- cherry picking. Give me an excerpt of the McDonald’s employee handbook that covers employee hygiene (wash your hands after using the bathroom) and I can, by misquoting it, prove that McDonald’s is a ritual cleansing cult.

Lastly, I’m still waiting for either of you, or anyone for that matter, to address my point concerning the comparison of Mr. Spencer’s work and lack of qualifications with that of Mr. Dawkins. If one considers Mr. Spencer’s work valid, one has to logically consider Mr. Dawkins’s work as valid given the similarities between the two author’s qualifications and motivations.

Spencer in this area of Islam is or isn’t accurate we don’t know yet. As I have mentioned many times here, my position isn’t to validate Spencer or find him incorrect in any specific area. My point has been and is, until you or I or whoever can in fact show that he is all washed up, then I see no sense in trashing the guy. I see no sense in trashing him even if he is wrong. That being my earlier point with Islam and a double standard.

Do we want to trash Islam? Of course not, why we would trash a Christian then? Follow what I’m saying? And education may have well have helped his position. But that in itself doesn’t make him wrong either.

Now. to start, the female with a doctorate in psychology which I posted. You can’t find anything wrong in her evaluation of Mohammad/Quran. For the simple reason I can’t, course the other two links just further confirm her statement, then of course mine. Now I’ll give you this that everyone who reads the Quran doesn’t get that only insanity message propelled by chaos and violence with a, Rule the World conclusion. . But we can rest assure many do, as we see daily on the news. Syria, Egypt and on and on, thus the other links also with the Muslim Brotherhood. You realize muslims in American actually are united to a degree to stop Sharia Law? So yes we know that “civil” muslims do exist.

Now if Robert Spencer in Christianity and understanding decided to send a signal out to his brothers and sisters, I see no fault and apparently CAF doesn’t either? Well that seems alright by me.

I didn’t need to hear the signal, so in this sense I do not follow him. But if we would like to examine point by point here I would start with the video and the behavior then add the other scholar with a PHD in Islam who wanted to chop heads off as a further confirmation of a red flag?

Would you agree Mohammad had an anger issue that appears to be transmitted to some? Jesus no right? Would you agree we have mutant thinking going on here with Terrorism and the so-called Arab Spring of love and peace?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No. I don’t have to play your game and admit your methods (which methods I haven’t used, BTW).

Spencer rose to fame as a blogger, not a scholar. If you think he is out to lunch, show where he gets it wrong. It should be easy to do, since he is not a scholar, right? But make it your words, your thought, and argue on the facts.

You have to admit, "Spencer seeks to profit from his books " is a dumb argument no?

-“Spencer seeks to profit from his books” isn’t a dumb argument at all. I don’t particularly think that that is his main motivation, but it is a valid argument. His “fame” is dependent on his books, his income is either directly or indirectly dependent on his books, his professional associations are dependent on his books, and his books are the primary means by which he pushes his views/agenda and the views/agenda of the organizations he belongs to and or receives money from. Remove the books from the equation and you’re left with just another unknown, not wealthy internet blogger.

-Um, yes you did actually adopt my position. You did so by claiming that Mr. Spencer uses scholarly or legit Islamic sources. The only way Mr. Spencer using legit sources is relevant is if you hold bias, credibility, and scholarly value as important factors in determining the value of a source. If we go with your contention that this is just public discourse and my standards are unrealistic, than his use of legit sources is irrelevant.

-Mr. Dawkins- Yeah, not a red herring given the similarities between his qualifications and Mr. Spencer’s; and given the lack of use of professional standards of research, methodology, etc, in their works.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Spencer in this area of Islam is or isn’t accurate we don’t know yet. As I have mentioned many times here, my position isn’t to validate Spencer or find him incorrect in any specific area. My point has been and is, until you or I or whoever can in fact show that he is all washed up, then I see no sense in trashing the guy. I see no sense in trashing him even if he is wrong. That being my earlier point with Islam and a double standard.

Do we want to trash Islam? Of course not, why we would trash a Christian then? Follow what I’m saying? And education may have well have helped his position. But that in itself doesn’t make him wrong either.

Now. to start, the female with a doctorate in psychology which I posted. You can’t find anything wrong in her evaluation of Mohammad/Quran. For the simple reason I can’t, course the other two links just further confirm her statement, then of course mine. Now I’ll give you this that everyone who reads the Quran doesn’t get that only insanity message propelled by chaos and violence with a, Rule the World conclusion. . But we can rest assure many do, as we see daily on the news. Syria, Egypt and on and on, thus the other links also with the Muslim Brotherhood. You realize muslims in American actually are united to a degree to stop Sharia Law? So yes we know that “civil” muslims do exist.

Now if Robert Spencer in Christianity and understanding decided to send a signal out to his brothers and sisters, I see no fault and apparently CAF doesn’t either? Well that seems alright by me.

I didn’t need to hear the signal, so in this sense I do not follow him. But if we would like to examine point by point here I would start with the video and the behavior then add the other scholar with a PHD in Islam who wanted to chop heads off as a further confirmation of a red flag?

Would you agree Mohammad had an anger issue that appears to be transmitted to some? Jesus no right? Would you agree we have mutant thinking going on here with Terrorism and the so-called Arab Spring of love and peace?

-The only aspect of Mr. Spencer I’m “trashing” is his credibility as any sort of expert or “talking head” on Islam; and frankly I don’t view it as “trashing.” He lacks the basic qualifications necessary to even be considered an expert or a “talking head.” Heck, my experience overseas, informal education on Islam and the Middle East (prep work for my deployment there) and the minor focus on the Middle East I had for my undergrad degree in history and graduate degree in political science makes me more of a creditable “expert” than him.

-The value of his points- You’re right, we can’t really know if his points are valid or not. That’s the primary reason to ignore/disregard his works.

-The sites you linked- Yeah, the articles on them could be 100% correct and 100% within proper context and use. But, like the value of Mr. Spencer’s points we won’t ever know if they are or not. Several months ago I came across an anti-Catholic website that had citations linked directly from the official Vatican website. This website would present it’s anti-Catholic rant then misquote and/or selectively cite an official Church document as supporting evidence. Frankly, they made a very good anti-Catholic argument (good here to indicate the effectiveness of their argument, not the quality of it).

 

[JHow]

A motive to profit is an argument effective only to those inclined to dislike profit in general.

It is a dumb argument because no book is published in the hopes of not selling well and perhaps turning a loss.

You can’t use profit to discredit the contents of a book.

My brief is this:

You don’t have to be an “Islamic scholar” to comment about Islam. Neither do you have to possess an advanced degree. The jihad watch blog predates Spencers books and is the work for which he is best known (IMO). Blogs absolutely do not require the same standards of sourcing, style, or detail as academic research papers. The new media are about get in, make a point, get out. Also, the new media are about getting instant access to sources you might not typically find in the stodgy old media. Like getting the latest “nonrepresentative” Muslim source mis-explaining the real Islam.

All I am trying to get you to do us to critique Spencer’s ideas as opposed to the man.

 

[GaryTaylor]

-The only aspect of Mr. Spencer I’m “trashing” is his credibility as any sort of expert or “talking head” on Islam; and frankly I don’t view it as “trashing.” He lacks the basic qualifications necessary to even be considered an expert or a “talking head.” Heck, my experience overseas, informal education on Islam and the Middle East (prep work for my deployment there) and the minor focus on the Middle East I had for my undergrad degree in history and graduate degree in political science makes me more of a creditable “expert” than him.).

Right, I was speaking in general ocg, not pointing at you, I’ve read the thread here some time ago on Mohammad and the validity of his existence. I’m not even convinced that was a good argument, yet reading here and actually reading the book is also a difference. Not sure if there was overwhelming evidence or not, have my doubts through.

–The value of his points- You’re right, we can’t really know if his points are valid or not. That’s the primary reason to ignore/disregard his works.).

Well the above certainly didn’t stimulate me to read to further, I’ll give you that.

–The sites you linked- Yeah, the articles on them could be 100% correct and 100% within proper context and use. But, like the value of Mr. Spencer’s points we won’t ever know if they are or not. Several months ago I came across an anti-Catholic website that had citations linked directly from the official Vatican website. This website would present it’s anti-Catholic rant then misquote and/or selectively cite an official Church document as supporting evidence. Frankly, they made a very good anti-Catholic argument (good here to indicate the effectiveness of their argument, not the quality of it).

I look at Islam through the behavior aspect. And frankly I know very good muslims… I do the same with Christianity and people in general. The political/religious aspect does seem to be a obstacle for them. Also not true only for Islam. Nevertheless its not hard to figure out how one could go from conscience to destructiveness in some misguided vision. Its a problem in learned behavior and promoted by large in the areas of Sharia Law, and they claim this is how they desire, in love of God to live by large. Unfortunate its at the price of anything which doesn’t agree with them. This “is” the recipe for war. Two have a cause they are willing to fight for and people die for the cause. There’s also the privilege of majority. And through that agenda the privilege is always contested, if not from without, it implodes from within.

Do I believe there’s a radical agenda looking to control through intentional means those secular muslims? Without a doubt and should that radical aspect continue to gain the upper hand be it through deceit, lies, violence, hate or whatever, then everyone suffers including those good muslims. You see when you don’t take care of business in that way of life, then you become the business. Astonishingly also through what many would claim to be the objective truth There is no other way in this sense, but the way we see unfolding. So yes there is a very real concern. Is Islam going to realize all follow the God of Abraham? Pipe dream is what that is, though with God all things are possible. Good to see the forest from the woods till then though.

We are dealing with possibility and probability. Probable is violence and persecution will continue as everyone is witnessing. Was is possible Dawkins would change, for sure, but did he? Umm no. true blue till the end. He was certain about the objective truth also.

 

[aspirant]

How do you define treachery in war? …According to muslim sources? Where?

What’s really relevant to the conversation is how Muslims understand the term. Many seem to understand “treachery” to mean such things as hypocrisy, betraying trusts, and breaking covenants, treaties, or promises. As Sahih Bukhari related: “when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him… ‘do not steal; do not be treacherous; do not mutilate; and do not kill children…’” (This exhortation is repeated in other ahadith.)

Some Muslims also highlight that the prohibition on treachery both in and outside war also extends to assassination; a hadith collected in Abu Dawud says: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The Faith prevents assassination. A believer should not assassinate.”

According to the Muslims I’ve consulted, the prohibition on treachery includes treachery against pagans; they here appeal to another hadith collected in Abu Dawud says: “During the period of ignorance, Al-Mughirah accompanied some people, murdered them, and took their wealth and then he later accepted Islam. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, ‘As for your Islam, we have accepted it, but in regard to the wealth, it is the wealth of treachery; we have no need for it.’”

Not all of my sources have been online, but here are a few examples of a variety of Muslim commentators talking about the prohibition of treachery even in war:
muslimsofmichigan.com/articles8.html
islamqa.info/en/ref/10138
islamicstudies.info/result.php?sura=8&verse=58

Ever run across someone misquoting the Bible (can’t argue with the legitimacy of that source) in order to prove a false point? I have. In fact, this type of misuse of a source has a term attached to it- cherry picking.

Here are a few examples I have encountered among non-Christians seeking to discredit scripture and/or Christianity:

Using Psalm 137: 9 to claim that the Bible approves murdering innocent children.
Using John 7:5-10 to claim Jesus is a liar and therefore a sinner.
Using Romans 3:7-8 to claim that Paul allowed lying for a good end (I think the misinterpretation is obvious, but apparently the other person did not!)

Several months ago I came across an anti-Catholic website that had citations linked directly from the official Vatican website. This website would present it’s anti-Catholic rant then misquote and/or selectively cite an official Church document as supporting evidence.

Jack Chick has done this frequently in his publications. Here’s a totally crazy example that features quotes the Council of Trent (followed by some pretty egregious misinterpretation of the quotes).

 

[GaryTaylor]

aspirant, Islam understands war through religion/God, and then the one who is ruling and following his God at the present moment. Thus war and treachery are “In the name of God”. They call it Holy War. I call ALL war unjust and un-Holy, its immoral and doesn’t reside in ethical theory.

The object of war is to win. When war begins the rules are made up moment by moment since life is contingent on any given moment, the rules go out the window and I assure you that holds true for Islam. In other words those involved do whatever they need to do to win, and as quickly as humanly possible or they perish.

When Islam completely stops promoting war I will then listen to their stance on war. And yes both Bible and Quran have been used to promote some ill conceived theory about Gods intention and war.

 

[aspirant]

aspirant, Islam understands war through religion/God, and then the one who is ruling and following his God at the present moment.

I cannot understand what you’re trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?

Thus war and treachery are “In the name of God”.

According to the Muslims I’ve just cited, Islam forbids treachery both in war and outside war.

They call it Holy War.

Many reject the term as a Western invention. Here are a few examples:
carolinamuslims.com/jihad-a-holy-war.php
quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/the_concept_of_jihad_%28P1360%29.html
islamology.com/Overview/Terrors/Jihad.htm
[islamweb.net/ema(name removed by moderator)age/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=137412](http://www.islamweb.net/ema(name removed by moderator)age/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=137412)

Regardless whether and which Muslims use the term, it’s a fair point that Westerners, including our fellow Catholics, have used such terms. Here’s an example of from Abbot Guibert of Nogent’s account of Pope Urban II’s speech to the Council of Clermont:

I call ALL war unjust and un-Holy, its immoral and doesn’t reside in ethical theory.

While I consider this an entirely understandable stance, the Catholic Church allows that there are conditions in which war can be justified and means by which it may be justly waged.

When war begins the rules are made up moment by moment since life is contingent on any given moment

I agree that many, if not most, participants in war act this way. It does not follow from their behavior, however, that their religions actually endorse or allow such behavior. In 1945, Father George Zabelka blessed fellow Catholic Major Charles W. Sweeney and the bombs he would carry to the horrific destruction of tens of thousands of people, including the largest Catholic population in Japan. That Catholics did this did not mean that Catholicism teaches that it’s OK to murder civilians with weapons of mass destruction. Far from it.

Fr. George, to his credit, spent much of his life publicly repenting and speaking out against the evil. I hope that Maj. Sweeney did similarly.

And yes both Bible and Quran have been used to promote some ill conceived theory about Gods intention and war.

Unfortunately true.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“TERRORISM IS TREACERY”. Islamic Terrorist groups exist, their state provides shelter for Terrorists, they do nothing themselves about it but talk in a misguided defense. Thus it does follow.

Iran is a Terrorist State. Syria is Terrorist State. etc. Egypt not looking good at all. Ask the Coptic Church how they are doing with the Muslim Brotherhood.

For further thinking read my above post CAREFULLY.

We are not talking about the Catholic Church Catechism nor the CC, Islam War and Robert Spencer is the OP. You state “Islam said” and I disagree by self evident fact, its called “terrorism”. What exactly is that suppose to mean to me the CCC said? Is that so YOU can Validate delusional thinking of war and Islam. Wow that is astounding.

Its called reverse confrontation and is avoidance of confrontation, and by you. Your best response is “MUSLIMS SAID”

By that logic now listen real carefully…“ROBERT SPENCER said”

And by the promoted “education dilemma.” All education need now be admitted" or you will need “admit” that’s not relevant.

Oh and “exactly” how much education does one need to enter this conversation about Islam? How about practical experience? Should that be acknowledge? Is it better to read about fixing a car, or learn by actually fixing the car? Right I though so.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And here is your “educated response” to Treachery of Islam in War by Mohammad himself.

youtu.be/Hcm873G94jo

 

[aspirant]

Islamic Terrorist groups exist

Yes. So, unfortunately, do self-identified Christian terrorist groups. And some faithful Muslims condemn terrorist acts by self-identified Muslims just as some faithful Christians condemn terrorist acts by self-identified Christians.

their state provides shelter for Terrorists

Islam is not a state. There are Muslims living in numerous states around the world, including our own. Many of the latter condemn the harboring of terrorists.

We are not talking about the Catholic Church Catechism nor the CC

We should when it’s relevant to the topic.

by self evident fact

This is not reason. This is mere assertion.

What exactly is that suppose to mean to me the CCC said?

I’m sorry, I was under the impression that you, like me, are a Catholic. If you are not, forgive me.

Your best response is “MUSLIMS SAID”

Do you think non-Muslims decide what Muslims believe?

And by the promoted “education dilemma.” All education need now be admitted" or you will need “admit” that’s not relevant.

Oh and “exactly” how much education does one need to enter this conversation about Islam? How about practical experience? Should that be acknowledge? Is it better to read about fixing a car, or learn by actually fixing the car? Right I though so.

At this point, I can’t even discern what you’re talking about, sorry.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And to further add the belief that Muslim radical groups have deviated from true Islam and must return to “pure Islam” as originally practiced during the time of the Prophet is a moot point from above. The stance that radical groups have strayed in ideology is contrary to the above thinking of Mohammad in actual war. He was a War General. That we know.

By Islamic belief Women are no different than Domesticated animals [above]. And all in the name of God. Very telling in how they respond and treat women outside their religion, better known as Treachery in War which coincides with their Social/Political/Religious belief in “God said”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes. So, unfortunately, do self-identified Christian terrorist groups. And some faithful Muslims condemn terrorist acts by self-identified Muslims just as some faithful Christians condemn terrorist acts by self-identified Christians…

Your point is TREACERY in War.

Islam is not a state. There are Muslims living in numerous states around the world, including our own. Many of the latter condemn the harboring of terrorists…

No-one said otherwise symantics. Islamic states in Islam exist ruled by Islamic Sharia Law

We should when it’s relevant to the topic…

The topic is Robert Spencer/Islam. Is education relevant to this point or not.

This is not reason. This is mere assertion…

As is yours.

I’m sorry, I was under the impression that you, like me, are a Catholic. If you are not, forgive me…

I was at first under the impression you were Catholic also. Is your Christianity under question here? A personal attack has been on-going by you. Is that how you respond in Christian Charity when everyone doesn’t role over and agree with you?

Do you think non-Muslims decide what Muslims believe?.

Moot point do you think muslims decide what non-muslims believe? Apparently they think so.

And I think their misguided interpretation of the Quran which is a manifesto for violence does decide for them.

At this point, I can’t even discern what you’re talking about, sorry.

Your usual rant. which I find to be nonsense in your misguided attempt to prove no Treachery in War by Islam which is “impossible” for anyone to discern, but to you and a few secular muslims apparently. Still waiting for the admission of education to even consider any link by the standards placed on this thread.