"Let me tell you this my friend, your crusade against Islam and the Prophet is instigated by personal hatred"

"Mumammad"? Is that an Egypto-Islamic deity?

Speaking of haters...
From Ace of Spades HQ

Obergruppenkommander Charles Speaks: Hot Air Racist, Fascist; Must Be Purged
—Ace

Apparently CJ's moderator Kilgore Trout went over there last night and started posting racist stuff. To see, he said, if it would be cleaned up.

It wasn't. Because both Allah and Ed were asleep. It being the middle of the night.

Actually, it's only arguably racist if you yourself believe that wookies = black people, which Kilgore Trout does.

So he spammed the threads with this, and it wasn't cleaned up to until the AM.

Obergruppenkommander Charles' conclusion? They're racists.

UPDATE [DrewM.] Hot Air responds by moving LGF from "War on Terror" blog roll to "Left Channels". Well played Hot Air. Well played indeed.

Does Mr Spencer have a digital map on his computer, or an actual paper map up on the wall which can be suitably marked with the points of origin of these charming epistles?

I don't know how many of them he gets, but it might be amusing if he has a friend who at the end of a set period, say, a month or two, or six months, could make him up a pie chart showing what percentage of the messages come from which places.

No, It is not driven by personal hateed for this poster. It is driven by hundreds of years of hatred, violence,
persecution, subjugation women(including your own, entrapped under the vicious enslavement of Islam and Sharia law). My 'crusade' is against the words of the Qur'an that call out for the death to the Jews, death
to those who are intelligent enough to refuse to convert
Islam.

The 'real' Muhammad was a perverse, sadistic false
prophet. Islam has killed millions of innocent
people since the 7th century. It has ruined or
evaporated entire cultures and socities.So, no
I am not driven by a personal hatred. I am driven by
the dangers that Islam brings with, it no matter where
or when it appears. I have read many of the early
writings that are mentioned and I am constantly reading
about Islam, studying, and speaking out against it.What I say and feel about Islam comes from education and watching
Islams actions around the world.

Willemstad:
I have read "The Truth About Muhammad" and could not
disagree with you more. You are quick to accuse Robert
of something that I have never heard him say in written words or quotes of his that I have read. I have never heard him say anything about a "personal hatred" against
Islam or your prophet in videos of him that I have watched. Your accusation of Mr. Spencer is proof enough
of the hatred that comes from those under Islam. Against anyone who disagrees or refuses to convert and submit themselves to the brainwashing and loss of freedom of thought that comes with Islam. You are poisoned by your own words.

There is no peace within Islam, and with Islam there
can never be peace.

"I read your "The Truth about Muhammad". Let me tell you this my friend, your crusade against Islam and the Prophet is instigated by personal hatred. Read "Mumammad in the eyes of Western Thinkers" lo learn about the real Muhammad, messenger of Allah. Good luck."

I would like to see a list inaccuracies in The Truth About Mohamed. I also read the book and found no personal hatred presented.

I will suggest a book to hatemailer, Understanding Mohamed; A Psycobiography of Allah's Prophet, by Ali Sina.

Mr Spencer...Robert, if I may...on a personal level, I can only Thank You for your efforts. It is helping me keeping informed and it's enhancing my knowledge.
One only wants to hope that against all evidence and indications there is a limit to human stupidity and that in this age of information available to all, all those peace-lovers so keen on writing idiocies to you, will evenctually realise there is a donkey staring at them when they are in front of a mirror.

For many, Benito Mussolini might not be the best political figure to get a statement from but I have always liked this one: Molti Nemici, Molto Onore. (lots of enemies, lots of honour)

Of course it's personal hatred!
I personally hate the idea of being decapitated for refusing Allah worship.

I read "The Truth about Muhammad" and I think it's a great and revealing book, I'm very grateful, Robert wrote it. The self-appointed prophet almost contravened all ten commandments. He was a monster.

And btw a long time before Robert was born, Turkey's Mustapha Kemal Atatürk stated that Mahound was an immoral Bedouin whose ideology was like a putrefying corpse.

How can anyone like Islam/Mohammad? Hate spews out of the koran and hadiths...violence spews out of the koran and hadiths...racism spews out of the koran and hadiths. Did I leave anything out?

...your crusade against Islam and the Prophet is instigated by personal hatred.

You are right, my friend, justified by the Cult called Islam, the personal hatred for kaffirs by 1.2 billion Muslims causing the deaths of 270,000,000 is enough to warrant a reaction to this barbaric assault on humanity. A very large percentage of the infidels on the planet don't even know that you hate them, and will kill them, should the opportunity arise. Bring on the Crusades2.

I have said this before, but there is not much point in arguing if Islam is a religion of peace or a sadistic blood cult. It is both. It is whatever its followers believe it to be. The problem with pointing out violent passages in the Koran is that Muslim apologists can come back with equally violent passages from the Old testament. Since I do not for a minute think the Koran is the revealed word of God, to argue what god meant is like arguing about which galaxy Star Wars takes place in.It's all made up, so it doesn't matter. For a some it is indeed a religion of peace, and for many, many others it is a horrific religion of violence and intolerance.Whether one side or the other is mis-interpreting the Koran is not important- they will believe what they want to believe.
As Bin-Laden has said "you love life, we love death". Would Willemstad presume to tell Bin Laden and his followers that they not real Muslims and are incorrect about Islam? I would love to see that exchange!The problem as I see it is that the Muslims who believe in a peaceful and tolerant Islam (by western standards) are few and far between. It is a matter of percentages, and I don't like what I am seeing in that regard.

Great comment above, dsinc, and I agree completely.

Islam can be hated just as any other ideology can be hated. My "personal hatred" for Islam is as strong as my "personal hatred" for Fascism and Nazism.

I have said this before, but there is not much point in arguing if Islam is a religion of peace or a sadistic blood cult. It is both. It is whatever its followers believe it to be. The problem with pointing out violent passages in the Koran is that Muslim apologists can come back with equally violent passages from the Old testament. Since I do not for a minute think the Koran is the revealed word of God, to argue what god meant is like arguing about which galaxy Star Wars takes place in.It's all made up, so it doesn't matter. For some it is indeed a religion of peace, and for many, many others it is a horrific religion of violence and intolerance.Whether one side or the other is mis-interpreting the Koran is not important- they will believe what they want to believe.
As Bin-Laden has said "you love life, we love death". Would Willemstad presume to tell Bin Laden and his followers that they not real Muslims and are incorrect about Islam? I would love to see that exchange!The problem as I see it is that the Muslims who believe in a peaceful and tolerant Islam (by western standards) are few and far between. It is a matter of percentages, and I don't like what I am seeing in that regard.

...your crusade against Islam and the Prophet is instigated by personal hatred.

You are right, my friend, justified by the Cult called Islam, the personal hatred for kaffirs by 1.2 billion Muslims causing the deaths of 270,000,000 is enough to warrant a reaction to this barbaric assault on humanity. A very large percentage of the infidels on the planet don't even know that you hate them, and will kill them, should the opportunity arise. Bring on the Crusades2.

"The problem with pointing out violent passages in the Koran is that Muslim apologists can come back with equally violent passages from the Old testament." -- posted above

I think that's an over-generalization. Of course there are violent passages in the OT, but they do not match the virulence of those in the Q.

Also, pointing out the violent passages in the Q is entirely legitimate as they show that Islam is certainly not a "religion of peace."

"The problem with pointing out violent passages in the Koran is that Muslim apologists can come back with equally violent passages from the Old testament."

That's an entirely factitious "problem." The Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, are filled with violence, and aggression, and a determination to make sure that nowhere in the world will any obstacles to the dominance of Islam remain. . And what's more, that violence has been taken to heart, acted upon, and even without that violence, the doctrine and duty of Jihad, if pursued through non-violent ends (such as the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest), leads ultimately to the same world: a world where Islam dominates, Muslims rule, and Shari'a, or something modelled on the Shari'a, ideally is imposed.

To compare this to the same handful of passages in, say, Leviticus, passages that are, in the first place, most limited in space (to a tiny sliver of land) and in time (to a particular period involving war with, for example, the Canaanites), and furthermore, to ignore the fact that these passages have no significance, are not followed, by Jews (unless one thinks that all over the world, for centuries, Jews have in their synagogues been carefully making plans to smite the Canaanites --- an absurdity -- and that this constitutes a threat to everyone).

How one can continue to accept the nonsense of apologists for Islam, the Tu-Quoque which likes to dwell on "you do it too" -- just look at some passages in Leviticus -- is a puzzlement. It can only be explained by a deep desire not to believe that Islam, the texts and tenets of Islam, do not mean what they say, are not as vividly present in the minds of many -- not all, but a great many -- Muslims, and that to the precise extent that a Muslim takes Islam to heart, to that extent he constitutes a threat to the wellbeing of all non-Muslims.

This idiotic business of finding parallels where there are none surely has to stop.

Hugh

Thanks..and save the above post to be injected every time that lame fricking argument about "old testement violence" reappears..as it does regularly.

herself said: How can anyone like Islam/Mohammad? Hate spews out of the koran and hadiths...violence spews out of the koran and hadiths...racism spews out of the koran and hadiths. Did I leave anything out?

islamoleery says: try galatians 5:22-23, which gives witness to the fruit of the Spirit of G_d, and the traits characteristic of those who love and bow to He Who abides in unapproachable Light: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance

i think mohammed's "new" revelation is just satan trying to stretch his wings... for allah is the "great deceiver," and satan is the father of lies,,, and thus, it becomes apparent that mohammed is a child of his father the devil, and knew nothing of the Righteousness of G_d.

mohammedanism is filth in a man-dress. Peace, in His love

Thanks darcy, nice to see you back. Something strange happening. I posted at 5.13am and now I see it was repeated at 5.28, but not my me. I have never hit the submit button more than once.

Willemstad is blinded by pride, because it's hard to admit that your prophet was nothing more than a power-hungry-con-man.

Guess it's easier to attempt to discredit anyone telling the Truth About Muhammad than to face the fact that you've been punk'd by a phony prophet.

champ, in a Biblical sense, Willemstad is blinded by pride.

Allah, like some giant thumb on the Sharia pressure plate squeezes the followers of Muhammad to the point they (and we) must endure constant retching of invective.

in pride they can possess no intent to bring any hope and can only hurl, (i guess), to force feed us their despair.

the religion is impotent; cannot bring life, only glorious waste and death.

Let me tell you this, my friend (lol) - I can hate and despise any ideology I feel is worthy of hating and despising - namely, Fascism, Nazism, and...Islam. End of story.

Alaskan,

Kilgore Trout,

I knew him, Horatio! Was he not the penned name author of Venus on the Half-Shell and also a fictional character in a couple of Kurt Vonnegut novels as well as Theordore Sturgeon's?
I is said that the name Kilgore Trout comes from the reference swapping of Kilgore for Theodore and Trout for Sturgeon.

So I looked up "MUHAMMAD IN THE EYES OF NON-MUSLIM THINKERS AND SCHOLARS"
It begins thus...
It is a difficult task to describe the versatility of character of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, and it would indeed require volumes to do justice to him, to his sincerity, generosity, frugality, broad-mindedness, firmness and tenacity of purpose, his steadfastness, and calmness in adversity, his meekness in prosperity, his humility in greatness, his modesty in character, his anxious care for animals, his passionate fondness and love for children, his bravery and fortitude, his magnanimity of spirit, his unbending sense of justice and above all his noble mission to save humanity from destruction.

Does this sound anything like the characterization of the Muhammad we have read of in the Qur'an, Hadiths, and particularly Tafsir al-Tabari?

Does it sound like the historical Muhammad who raped, burned, pilaged, executed by beheading, pole-skewering, drawing and quartering and other horrible means, terrorised, over-taxed his subjects, enslaved, and committed genocide across the Arabian Penninsula and beyond as well as spawning a new breed of Caliphs, Sheiks and evil Mullahs to follow in his footsetps for the next 1400 years?

I would note that the alleged reader of Mr. Spencer's book did not deem it necessary to refute any portion of it. He simply brought up some other book without explanation. Also, Mr. Spencer's sources are inaccurate? When I plug in "Mohammed in the Eyes of Western Thinkers" I get some lovely Islamist tracts. Thomas Carlyle is tossed in as a supporter, but his comments on the Koran are safely ignored. You can view his blather on Mohammed(he does not really know him) and then his less ecstatic comments on the Koran:

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/carlyle/heroes/lewkowicz10.html

"It can only be explained by a deep desire not to believe that Islam, the texts and tenets of Islam, do not mean what they say, are not as vividly present in the minds of many -- not all, but a great many -- Muslims, and that to the precise extent that a Muslim takes Islam to heart, to that extent he constitutes a threat to the wellbeing of all non-Muslims. "

It is also a conscious attempt to deny the plain meaning held in the sacred texts, which Mohammed himself would probably call hypocritical. Let your "yes be "yes" and your "no" be "no".

Okay, okay, I have read "MUHAMMAD IN THE EYES OF NON-MUSLIM THINKERS AND SCHOLARS" and it makes me wonder what the heck these thinkers were reading?
Surely it wasn't the same Qur'an that I was reading.
Although most of the quotes were from socialists of the time, they seemed to totally ignore any violent acts, or sexual deviance perpetrated by the so-called prophet.

There were no quotes from the likes of Winston Churchill, naturally.

Come on guys- we're on the same side. My comment about comparisons between violence in the Koran and the old testament was taken out of context. My point was that when citing violent passages from the Koran, Islamic apologists will in turn cite violent passages from the Old Testament. And, yes, I still maintain that there is plenty of violence in the Old Testament. For instance, Samson, one of the great heroes of the Bible, loses a bet and needs to provide suits of clothes to the bet winners. He obtains those clothes by going to a Philistine village, killing a number of men, and taking their clothes. Stoning of adulterers was mandated. Also, a number of times the Israelites are commanded by God to kill every living thing in cities they have taken- men, women, children, infants and even animals. I do believe that counts as violence, at least in my way of thinking. But this is not the point, and please hear me out. When speaking of the violent nature of Islam, the argument needs to be more nuanced. For those of you who do not like the comparison being made, if you just cite the Koran, Muslims and their apologists will bring up violent passages of the Old Testament... every time, tit for tat. And what's more,many would consider their doing so as a legitimate form of debate.
Instead, it needs to be pointed out that, the teachings of Judaism and Christianity left that type of religious violence behind centuries ago,and eschew it in the modern world, whereas Islamic cultures have incorporated it into their very way of life, and their world philosophy. It is the modern Islamic teachings which are in agreement with the violent nature of Islam and Sharia law which need to be pointed out. The Islamists will have a hard time coming up with equivalent violent teachings in any legitimate modern Jewish or Christian denominations.A simple citing of the violence in the Koran, without making the point that such violence is still being preached in Mosques all over the world, makes it too easy for them to make a comparison- don't give them the opportunity.
And finally, if any of you have read my blogs in the past, you will know where I stand on creeping Islamic influence and power.
If I hit a raw nerve I did not intend to, but I think my argument is sound.

I have never heard of the book "Muhammad in the Eyes of Non-Muslim Thinkers and Scholars" but it was probably written by a muslim using a pseudonym. There are many books that paint a disingenuous picture of muhammad, islam, and islamic history and they are written for the ignorant and gullible. The historical record and islamic canonical texts are irrefutable references.

Mr. Spencer got his material from "biographers Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa'd, the canonical hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim, and other early Muslim works". Who would have thought that unnamed "non-muslim thinkers and scholars" know more about muhammad than his early biographers and the hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim?

I've been trying for months to join your group so I can participate and post comments. I have never been able to get past your sign-in procedures. Can you create an account for me? ID: Zola; PW: gnostic123.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Bob Jaffe
rfjaffe@att.net