| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
I am on the road, as assiduous readers of the comments here already know, and so I don't have time to give this the evisceration it deserves, but a brief note. The Wall Street Journal has outdone itself, following up the piece of puffery it published in December by the former President of Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid, with a new piece of puffery about his daughter, Yenny Wahid.
She is active in the NU's political wing, the National Awakening Party, and an adviser to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The job most dear to her heart, however, is running the Wahid Foundation--named after her father--which works to promote, in the words of its Web site, "democratic reform, religious pluralism, multiculturalism and tolerance amongst Muslims" and reflects "a universal Islam [that] desires justice and prosperity for all."
That's wonderful. In effect I suppose she means that she wants to see the dhimma officially renounced and never revived. I would applaud that, and support her wholeheartedly. But there is also this:
Like her famous father and other influential clerics in Indonesia, Ms. Wahid is trying to hold the line against this trend. Their task, as she sees it, is to remind Indonesians of the true teachings of Islam and its sacred texts. "One thing for sure is that [radicals] have a very distorted view of what religion should be," she says. "Killing people meaning glory? It's lunacy. We do discuss these things, we hold conferences, for instance on the word 'jihad' and how it's been used and abused throughout history. The prophet Muhammad said the greatest jihad is against yourself, how to make yourself a better person. It's not . . . running to kill people."
When I read this sort of thing, crab that I am, I get the sneaking suspicion that this is framed more for Western non-Muslims than for Muslims. For when she says, "the prophet Muhammad said the greatest jihad is against yourself, how to make yourself a better person," she is referring to a tradition that does not appear in the collections of hadith considered most reliable by Muslims, and she takes no account of the polemics by Hasan Al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam and others that make exactly that point, and are influential among Muslims. Muslims in Indonesia who have been recruited into jihadist groups have very likely been taught that. Does Yenny Wahid think that blandly restating what they believe to be a weak hadith will disabuse them of the jihad ideology that is based on a strong foundation of Qur'an and Sunnah? Or is she just trying to reassure jittery Westerners that they have nothing to fear from Islam?
Whichever, it would be better just to tell the truth. She can fool people who don't know Qur'an and Sunnah into thinking they don't teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, but she can't fool Muslims who might be attracted to jihad groups. And those are the ones she really needs to convince.
I have written things like this many, many times before, and I have often been told that it is positively Luciferian of me to do so, for we need to support Muslims who teach peace and tolerance. The obvious answer I always give is that of course we need to support Muslims who teach peace and tolerance, but I don't think it is asking too much of them if I ask for a little honesty. If you are trying to create an Islam of peace and tolerance, I am all for you. But don't try to pull the wool over my eyes and tell me that Islam teaches peace and tolerance. I have read Qur'an innumerable times. I have read Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Muwatta Malik, and others. I have read the tafasir of Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and the modern tafasir of Qutb and Maududi. I have studied the fiqh on jihad of all four major Sunni madhahib. I know what the teachings of the Islamic schools of thought are on jihad warfare. I didn't create this material myself. I obtained it from Islamic sources, Islamic publications. I have detailed some of this evidence in Onward Muslim Soldiers and my other books. So when I hear that the real Islam teaches peace, I have trouble believing that the one who is saying it is being fully honest, or is fully informed about the situation. I would be happy to support a reformer who acknowledges that the teachings on warfare exist, and rejects them. But someone who tells me they don't exist at all -- well, that just makes me suspicious.
Someone said to me after I wrote the piece about Andurrahman Wahid, linked above, that we had to support such people because the prospects for the future become just too bleak if we say the problem is within Islam itself. Here again, it's really very simple: if you won't admit it's broken, you'll never be able to fix it. Unfortunately, however, comforting fantasies are the rule not only at the Wall Street Journal, but in much of official Washington.
I am catching an early stagecoach back to Secure Undisclosed Locationville soon. Heavier blogging will resume upon my return.
Posted by Robert at February 25, 2006 9:53 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Thank you Robert for continuing to expose these poseurs. I believe once their mask of civility is removed then true ferocity will be displayed.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 25, 2006 10:48 AM
Good Morning
Thanks for posting that expose Robert, it came in quite handy to rebut as poster (at another blog) that said the piece by Miss Wahid was a 'must read'...
Nothing like some truth to offset the B.S.
Thanks again...
Posted by: American Infidel at February 25, 2006 11:12 AM
There is nothing to suggest that "moderate" muslims (even supposing that such a creature exists) have the authority, the soap box or the numbers to make any difference anywhere, except, as Robert astutely points out, as P.R. to the Infidel/kuffars.
Pinning our hopes on some chimerical "moderating" influence, some "Ghandi in the Sky" to come down from heaven and "abrogate the jihad" is worse than fantasist escapism, it is downright suicidal. It is willful ignorance of the worst kind since it attepts to substitute itself for the truth.
Worse yet is that the ruling classes in Washington and apparently Wall Street subscribe to it wholeheartedly.
There is no response to islamist aggression but to confront and defeat it. There is no response to muslim bullying but to fight back, there is no response to islamic colonization but to reject and reverse it.
There can be no compromise with Islam. Such compromises only weaken us further and embolden the Heathen head choppers. This clash of civilzations must play itself out, and we must prepare to fight it and win.
There is no other option.
Posted by: Martel360 at February 25, 2006 11:40 AM
Puffery, indeed. Same @#$%, different day, and yet, they still keep printing it in the MSM.
Each rehashing of the "Islam is peace" fantasy is a testament to how much they wish it were true-- like the famous X-Files poster, "I Want to Believe.".
Shifting gears, repeated "stagecoach" references have jogged my memory about this:
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 25, 2006 11:58 AM
Mr. Spencer,
Say hi to Paul Newman, Frederic March and Claire Bloom if they happen to be sharing your stagecoach, Hombre. (And Richard boone, if he should join up along the route.)
And everyone should check out and sign the online petition to aid the Kurdish writer, Marywan Halabjaye, now under death threats from those familiar people from the "Religion of Peace" (in Iraq) for penning the work "Sex, Shariah and Women in Islamic History", which, as usual, has driven a number of his fellow Muslims bananas.
http://www.petitiononline.com/01021970/petition.html
I think Islam no longer means "Submission", but "INTIMIDATION".
Raw, vicious and unrelenting.
(Or are they merely Arabic synonyms in the old texts?)
Maybe Mr. Spencer can find a translation of this seminal work (I haven't been able to locate it online, although it sold 1,000 hard copies in Kurdish Iraq... in Kurdish?... already, and was about to go into a second printing) and post some of his thoughts here at JW/DW?
Any Kurdish JW/Dw's who can help?
Let's keep a critical voice (for the scrutiny-of-Islam-movement-and-its-potential-reform) alive -and heard.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 25, 2006 12:16 PM
It is safe not to believe it. The scummy Muslim trend is overwhemingly against us now. We should follow the scummy Muslim trend like the way we follow the stock market. Remember : The trend is your friend!
Posted by: brooklyn_guy at February 25, 2006 12:28 PM
The Wall Street Journal much like the new National Review and The Weekly Standard cannot be described as anything but traitorous. The fact that they are "conservative" publications does not absolve them from the ideological bond they share with their brothers on the left such as The Nation. They won't touch immigration reform with a ten foot pole and they do a poor job covering Islam. Some of it is due to poor research (or none at all, but a repitition of platitudes) but a lot of has to do with shaming their opposition (on both the left and right) by calling them "racists".
"Oh, what you don't think the Iraqis can handle democracy? Racist. You don't think the UAE should be allowed to operate our ports? Racist. You don't think we should have saved the Bosnians and Kosovar Muslims from genocide? Racist. And if you really piss us off (NRO) then we'll disown you and throw you out of the conservative movement, nevermind that our publication is not taken seriously by most thinking conservatives, we still have the power."
Whether it is Jonah Goldberg calling the French racists during the beur riots, Larry Kudlow chiding us for our Islamophobia over the UAE port deal, or Suleiman al-Kosovi trying to convince us that the Balkan Muslims are moderate and our friends, it's all the same song and dance from each publication. They will not think outside of ideological box and recognize Islam as the problem itself and they will not seek to inform the public of this grave threat to our liberty.
Instead they give a platform to some of the most cunning taqiyya aritsts like this gentle muslimah from Indonesia: "Yes, yes, please tell us about the moderate side of Islam. Tell us about peace. Don't worry you don't have to comment on the Christian massacres, just as long as you love the free market, then you're okay by us!" or the NRO version: "Yes Mustapha, tell us about how we can build bridges with the Muslim community over Intelligent Design. Tell us how Muslims are traditional and how many will vote Republican if given the chance. But don't comment on how the lack of antisemitism in mosques is usually the exception and not the rule. We don't want to hear that. How can we conduct a dialogue if we antagonize the proud Muslim community?"
Multiculturalism is the achilles heel of the Left and that is why they embrace the Muslims. But many people do not point out that it is the traditionalism of the right that makes them embrace the Muslims as well. Why else would Pat Buchanan and Jean Marie Le Pen support the Muslim community over the cartoon riots? Both of them certainly aren't supporters of the Third World, yet they support the Muslims in this case unconditionally. The Left uses the Muslims to battle the nativists and the Right uses the Muslims to battle the secularists. What a strange partnership! Likewise these publications use the Muslims for their own reasons: WSJ uses them for the freemarket, the NR uses them for ID and pro-life activism, and TWS uses them for their Bush-Democracy-Homework-Project. Little do they realize that by making alliances with these "moderate" Muslims they are losing their freedom to speak truthfully a little bit each day. They will never wake up until it becomes painfully obvious.
Posted by: igor at February 25, 2006 12:39 PM
At least they are trying. Can we conceive of how difficult it must be to turn against one's religion in a society much more traditional than the west? Such rebellions are either private; personally devastating through loss of friends, family and career; or even fatal. The "Islam is really moderate" canard is better than nothing. If Indonesia softens enough, perhaps a space in the society will open up where Islam can really come under criticism, and people of conscience can apostate and leave Islam without fear.
Quijybo
Posted by: Quijybo at February 25, 2006 12:42 PM
Perhaps the answer to "moderate Islam" lies somewhere in understanding the Kurds?
They call themselves Muslims. Yet they are peaceful and tolerant the way Westerners think, not the way Mohammed thought. They believe in women's rights.
Heck, even Hugh thinks they're worth protecting!
How do the Kurds justify their perspective? What do Kurdish religious leaders say during sermons? What do they teach? How do they reconcile their Islamic identification with their heretic lifestyle and perspective? Do Kurdish religious leaders tell their audience to favor surah 109 over surah 9? Why and how?
I understand that it may have to do with their Zoroastrian roots and the persecution they've suffered at the hands of Arabs, but that still doesn't explain how they as a culture can continue today to embrace "Islam" yet live it in a way that wouldn't worry any of us.
Any Kurdish experts around to explain? Could "Kurdish Islam" be the moderate Islam we try to steer the world towards?
Posted by: kamala at February 25, 2006 12:59 PM
Why is there so much hate between the civilized religions and Islam and its Muslim followers. This can be detailed in the basic between the civilized the world and Islam.
Islam's major fallacy is that Allah is a god. Allah is the whore demon of Satan that was formed from Mohammed's imagination to justify Mohammed's vile and evil actions of child rape, slavery, oppression of women and murder.
Islam enflames the basic barbaric depravity of men to repress and subjugate women and enslave or execute all men and women not Islamic that will not join their faith without any penalty from Islam for their actions.
Islam allows for all manner of depravity: rape, murder, theft and lying against non-Muslims without any punishment or condemning of the Muslims by their faith. If you are a Muslim and see a Non-Muslim woman and want her, you can rape her without repercussions for Islam. Muslims do not respect or follow any laws of any nation except for Islam.
All other religions and civilized countries condemn such depravity with due punishment in our courts and from our God(s) when we pass on to Heaven.
The laws of most countries are based on the common tenants of most religions aptly summed up in the Ten Commandments. The original writings in the Bible detailed that God said to “Not to commit murders.” which is the taking of innocent life which the Muslims do not follow.
The mutual respect for each human being that is the basis of our laws separates the civilized world from the barbaric tenants of the Koran that allows for:
Muslim women to be stoned for adultery
Daughters of Muslims to be murdered for supposed ills against the family
Rape of Non-Muslim women
Murder of tens of thousands of innocent Non-Muslims 9/11, Beslan, Africa, etc
Destruction of Non-Muslim places of worship
To list but just a few.
If the Koran is the true word of God, then Muslims have to follow all of it dictates including conquering the world and converting all to Islam or murdering those that will not convert to Islam. You can not be a Muslim without following all of the dictates of the Koran. Any Muslim that confesses otherwise is lying as allowed by the Koran so they can continue to grow until Islam is strong enough to conquer each country and then the world. Therefore, there are no moderate or peaceful Muslims allowed by the Koran or Islam.
The Bible tells Jews and Christians to protect the innocents of the world including stopping the murder of innocents by the corrupted souled Muslims.
This is a war of civilized people against the barbarism of Islam.
Today, this war is actively being fought in Nigeria and Somalia and totally ignored by the Bush Adminstration and MSM.
The war with Islam is inevitable.
Prepare be armed be ready.
The Texican.
Freedom. The only choice at any cost.
at February 25, 2006 1:09 PM
Islam is not a "religion of peace"
Islam is not a true religion.
Muhammad was not a prophet- just a nationalist Arab with religious fervor.
Puffery about the "true nature of Islam" is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.
The time has come for intellectuals to tell the truth about Islam.
The world needs more intellectuals like Robert Spencer who know the true roots of Islam and possess intellectual clarity.
Read here about the birth of Islam:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml
at February 25, 2006 2:07 PM
In the West, we need to develop the maturity to say, "We will decide what is religion, and what is not". We need to deny islam the stature of religion, and designate it an ideology.
Having done so, we can outlaw islam and deport its adherents.
If 1.2 billion drunks organized around their devotion to strong spirits, and called their devotion, "Religion", and called saloons, "Temples" is it really religion? What if they even had a "holy book", perhaps the Bartender's Bible? Is it a religion - or just alcoholism?
I say, "No, it is not religion". Similarly, islam is not a religion, it is only an violent, expansionist ideology seeking to displace our own.
We have the right and duty to grant religious status - or not. islam Does not qualify.
Posted by: 00Buck at February 25, 2006 3:10 PM
"I have read Qur'an innumerable times. I have read Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Muwatta Malik, and others. I have read the tafasir of Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and the modern tafasir of Qutb and Maududi. I have studied the fiqh on jihad of all four major Sunni madhahib. I know what the teachings of the Islamic schools of thought are on jihad warfare."
-- from Robert's article above
Okay, with that kind of reading list, how did you keep yourself from going mad, or becoming -- daverro -- "positively Luciferian"? Was it the early immersion in American political history? The later immersion in certain writers? And could that sort of study somehow help dilute Islam in those born into Islam? Or does being born into Islam presuppose a worldview that could never quite take in American (or other Western) political history, could never quite read, in the same way, Salinger or Borges or any of the others who helped provide the original mental ballast that allowed you to read all that stuff and keep your sanity, and didn't make Jack a dull boy?
One wonders whether those who still call themselves Muslims, out of some kind of diseased sympathy or filial piety, these "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, could take it upon themselves to plunge into those texts, hardly subscribe to any of it, could just dip into that stuff that they refuse to read, really take a look at it, sink into it, and get so completely and thoroughly disguseted that even that "I'm a cultural Muslim" business would no longer satisfy even them, and they would follow in the path of Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq and tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of others of silent dissidents, who have jettisoned all of it, kit and caboodle.
Posted by: Hugh at February 25, 2006 5:22 PM
Hugh, maybe it's as simple as an unwillingness--perhaps instinctive--to acknowledge (or be interested in learning about) flaws in oneself, one's ancestors, or one's own culture.
"My grandfather is a good man, and he's a Muslim. My father is a good man, and he's a Muslim. I'm a good man, and I'm a Muslim. How could there possibly be anything wrong with Islam?"
Posted by: kamala at February 25, 2006 5:52 PM
"...So when I hear that the real Islam teaches peace, I have trouble believing that the one who is saying it is being fully honest, or is fully informed about the situation. I would be happy to support a reformer who acknowledges that the teachings on warfare exist, and rejects them. But someone who tells me they don't exist at all
-- well, that just makes me suspicious..."
'War is deception' said Mohammed. You can lie, cheat & deceive: No problemo; as long as it furthers the cause of Islam. And when it comes to pulling the wool over the eyes and ears of 'suspecting' infidels everything must be done to defend the faith.
How many times have we seen blatant lies, outright denial, the stupidest attempts at obfuscation, circumventing the issues, when discussing anything with Mohammedans? The most idiotic conspiracy theories about 9/11, 7/7, (or any other terror-attacks anywhere) are parroted, regardless; in order to 'protect' Islam.
Trouble is, people in the west still prefer to listen to some half-wit Mohammedan Kitman & Taqiyya spin-doctor rather than informing themselves by reading the Koran, Sira & Hadith. They could take a shortcut by reading Spencers books, or Bat Ye'or, or Ibn Warraq, or Ali Sina. But that seems too much to ask.
I know some lefty moonbats who waste most of their life by logging on to the most obscure & useless websites. I have tried to take them to JW/DW and LGF, but its like the horse: You can take your horse to the water, but you can't force it to drink....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 25, 2006 6:19 PM
"My grandfather is a good man, and he's a Muslim. My father is a good man, and he's a Muslim. I'm a good man, and I'm a Muslim. How could there possibly be anything wrong with Islam?"
Posted by: kamala at February 25, 2006 05:52 PM
Kamala:
The Bible tells us that evil and vile men will also do good deeds for their families, but this does not make them good, only what is in their soul makes them good.
How can a Muslim have a clean soul if they follow the teaching of the corrupted souled Mohammed who was a pedophile, child molester, child rapists, woman hater and beater, murderer, thief, breaker of treaties, liar as detailed in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book of filth. The Koran is a book of filth and evil. Allah was a figment of Mohammed's imagination to provide acceptance of Mohammed's depraved ways and evil and vile actions.
Any one that follows Islam has a corrupted soul for how can you honor the corrupted souled Mohammed unless you also have a corrupted soul.
God will still accept you, but you have to leave Islam while you soul can be saved.
The Texican.
Freedom. The only choice.
Posted by: Texican at February 25, 2006 6:31 PM
...get so completely and thoroughly disguseted...
Can't say I've ever been disgusseted while reading a book, though I've often been debriefed afterwards.
Posted by: Interested at February 25, 2006 6:47 PM
Texican, I'm 100% sure that plenty of Muslims not only do good deeds but have "good souls" as well. My point is that many Muslims (though recent surveys make me wonder just how many) do NOT follow the teachings of Mohammad and do not even want to learn or hear about Mohammad. They instead look only to their friends, families, and ancestors--all, at least nominally, Muslims--who may do good deeds and have good souls.
After all, many Muslims today are Muslims only because their ancestors were forced to convert. Does forced conversion turn a good soul into a bad one? Many black Muslims of Africa fit this pattern.
Posted by: kamala at February 25, 2006 7:40 PM
a universal Islam [that] desires justice and prosperity for all.
The followers of Islam, the religion of peace and tolerance, are responsible for
the WTC massacre, the two Bali massacres, the Dafur massacre of Christians and other non-Muslims, the Madrid massacre, the London massacre, the massacre of tourists in Egypt the destruction of cultural heritage of others in Afghanistan, the destruction of the cultural heritage of other sects etc etc.
So when Muslims complain of intolerance and Islamophobia it’s a bit rich. Muslim organization are far more concerned about creating a smokescreen and demanding tolerance from non-Muslims, than they are on focusing on the real issue of exorcising the evil that is expressed in the name of Islam.
at February 25, 2006 7:45 PM
After all, many Muslims today are Muslims only because their ancestors were forced to convert. Does forced conversion turn a good soul into a bad one? Many black Muslims of Africa fit this pattern. Posted by: kamala
Be careful of what you say, because what you say is true of Christians also. Many a Christian is Christian because of forced conversion of ancestors.
And that is a fact.
Posted by: Nariz at February 25, 2006 9:09 PM
Nariz, so what? Are you suggesting there are many Christians who have good souls despite being Christian!?
Posted by: kamala at February 25, 2006 9:50 PM
Kamala- not all Muslims are bad people.
It is true that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God.
Human dignity is the basis for love and understanding.
People of all faiths are capable of being good people.
People of all faiths are also capable of being bad people.
The larger and more important philosophical question here relates to whether Muhammad led a moral life that is worth emulating.
The answer is obvious to anyone who understands the true character of Muhammad.
Muhammad's example is clearly not pure and holy.
Muhammad was not a revealer of Allah's message for mankind.
Muhammad did not speak the truth of God.
Muhammad killed people, raided communities, wedded an adolescent girl, stole the wife of his own son, and commanded his followers to drive all infidels (Jews, Pagans, and Christians) out of Arabia- by force if necessary.
Prophetic character?
Come on.
No way!
Posted by: Johnathan at February 25, 2006 11:26 PM
shiek yer'mami-
On the "take a horse to water" line...
Dorothy Parker put it a little differently:
"You can take a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."
(What she thought of horticulture, though, was never clear.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 26, 2006 12:16 AM
The people who say Islam is a religion of peace either do not know what the Koran says or they are lying.
What these "moderates" are saying is something like - The Mein Kampf is a good book. Its just not understood or the interpretations are wrong.
In many ways these people are more dangerous than the gun toting jihadists. They lie about what Islam proclaims to make it seem a good thing.
Like the Trojan Horse. Islam comes into your society, your heart and living room disguised as a peaceful thing and then....Allahu Akubar, Allahu Akubar, sell the unbeliever as a slave, amputate them, stone them, Behead them,
Islam, Mohammed and the Koran is a dangerous bloodthirsty cult bent on depravity and world domination.
Thank you Robert for exposing this very common trickery of Muslims.
at February 26, 2006 1:02 AM
Robert wrote:
"I have read Qur'an innumerable times"
A friend of mine has been sending me your articles for some time so I have finally come exploring JW myself.
As someone who fluently speaks and reads only English. I wonder is it possible for me to read the Qur'an? If so, where might I find a good translation? Your books page doesn't include one. Is there such a thing?
Posted by: BigDaddy at February 26, 2006 2:23 AM
Thus spake Hugh to Robert: Okay, with that kind of reading list, how did you keep yourself from going mad, or becoming -- daverro -- "positively Luciferian"?
My thoughts exactly.
In the media, instead of taking what Muslims state about the Quran at face value, given that it is too dense for the average media-person to follow diligently, why don't they do something simpler: Follow the history of the spread of Islam throughout the world, and then try squaring it off against what's in the Quran. See if that history went against Mohammedan tradition.
Incidentally, while I've read Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers, I've found it impossible to find the PIG to Islam in any local bookstore or library. Anyone have any idea whether it's sold out?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 26, 2006 3:07 AM
Big Daddy,
Here is a good start for you to read the Koran.
Read here: http://www.islam-guide.com/
Also, you can go to CAIR's website and order your free Koran in English.
Posted by: Johnathan at February 26, 2006 11:39 AM
Big Daddy,
The last link I sent you is not a good resource- there are Muslim apologists on that site who put forward a sugar coated view of Islam.
Here is a better link. Read:http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
Posted by: Johnathan at February 26, 2006 11:47 AM
"Plumps", or "pimps"?
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 26, 2006 12:48 PM
Jonathan,
Thanks for the info, though I must say CAIR is certainly sugar coating Muhammad as well. They have an excerpt from Muhammad's last sermon linked to from their homepage but when searching the net for the WHOLE sermon I got quite a surprise. CAIR's version is the "religion of peace" Muhammad. They have not just excerpted the sermon, apparently they have added to it as well.
Here is Muhammad's last sermon as found on the internet at Fordham: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/muhm-sermon.html
And here is the "excerpt" from the "same" sermon on the CAIR website:
http://www.cair-net.org/Muhammad/page.asp?pageid=lsp
at February 27, 2006 3:56 PM
Kamala is 100% right when it comes to certain Muslims not wanting to hear bad things about Bad Guy Mo. This is especially true about the vast majority of Muslim women, who are largely unlettered and uneducated. It would behoove us mightily to focus on these poor gals. I could expound mightily upon the National Geographic Afghani girl...but I won't.
And yes, Nariz, there were forced conversions of European pagans...the Vikings come to the forefront here. But somehow...there was a convergence. Just when, and how, did Thor's hammer become the cross of Christ? And was it only because of the conversion of Prince Olaf?? There's something else in the equation.
Posted by: kafira at February 27, 2006 9:09 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)