We in the Counter-Jihad / Defenders of Classical Liberal Values have learned from history. Leftist idealogues, whether they be in politics, in the academy and in open borders activist circles…… do not.
It underlines the buffoonish Left’s moronic insistence in using monoculture Islam as the poster child for its multicultural project. It was always doomed for failure. This is the reason why we should reject utopian based ideology for philosophy of the Enlightenment, based upon human experience. That would have stopped any infatuation with Islam dead in its tracks (and Leftism).
By MARK DUELL FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 05:04 GMT, 27 January 2016 | UPDATED: 10:50 GMT, 27 January 2016
Former watchdog chief: Trevor Phillips said in a talk at the Policy Exchange that it was disrespectful to assume Muslim communities would change
Muslim communities are not like others in Britain and the country should accept they will never integrate, the former head of the equalities watchdog has claimed.
Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was disrespectful to assume that Muslim communities would change.
He told a meeting at the Policy Exchange think tank in Westminster on Monday that Muslims ‘see the world differently from the rest of us’.
According to The Times, he said: ‘Continuously pretending that a group is somehow eventually going to become like the rest of us is perhaps the deepest form of disrespect.
‘Because what you are essentially saying is the fact that they behave in a different way, some of which we may not like, is because they haven’t yet seen the light. It may be that they see the world differently to the rest of us.’
Mr Phillips added that people of certain backgrounds in the UK are not going to change their views ‘simply because we are constantly telling them that basically they should be like us’.
The Muslim Council of Britain has insisted that members of the religion are compatible with UK life, and believes that the idea of demanding change from Muslims has promoted discrimination.
Praying: The Muslim Council of Britain has insisted that members of the religion are compatible with UK life, and believes that the idea of demanding change from Muslims has promoted discrimination (file picture)
A spokesman for the organisation told The Times: ‘It assumes that Muslims are not equal, and not civilised enough to be part and parcel of British society, which they most certainly are.’
The Prime Minister has previously made clear that integration failures have allowed extremist ideas to gain traction – resulting in around 700 British Muslims travelling to Syria to join Islamic State.
They couldn’t care less, they’re tribal before anything else.
Arab countries lack compassion and action to rescue each other despite the rhetoric of Arab/Islamic unity. Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations never open their borders to poor Muslims in distress. Even Egypt rejected the Darfur refugees who were later forced to go to Israel, which took them.
Oil rich Arab countries make it very difficult for other Arabs to visit except for haj. They are very tribal and refuse to dilute their culture with influx of foreigners. Third world country workers are treated inhumanely and are rarely given permanent residency, citizenship or equal rights as citizens.
| | Source: FrontPage Mag | Nonie Darwish
Western media is reporting on the Muslim refugee crisis as a humanitarian problem that the West must deal with. But where are the media’s questions about the huge financial and land resources available to oil rich Arab and Muslim countries? Where are the Islamic solutions in this equation?
The world is often lectured to about the urgency of respecting Arab and Islamic brotherly love, but where is the Arab action to rescue fellow Muslims and Arabs from the claws of ISIS?
Where are Arab feminists, especially those who demonstrated against France for banning the hijab? They are silent and doing nothing to rescue thousands of women that are victims of Islamic jihadist rape and enslavement. The only compassionate women helping women in the Middle East are the Christian mother Teresas and Kayla Muellers of the western world.
Where are the mighty Arab armies who waged dozens of wars against Israel? Why aren’t they fighting ISIS and building tent cities in the vast deserts of Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the wealthy Gulf States? They are all claiming they are “moderate” Muslims and that they are against ISIS. But is one substantive thing they have done?
Where are the thousands of Islamic human rights groups operating in the West, the likes of CAIR and ISNA, who are dedicating their energy and millions of dollars to stop discrimination against Muslims and “Islamophobia” in the West? This is the same West that their refugees are escaping to.
Where is the wealthy Arab League to coordinate safe cities on Arab land that extends from Morocco to Iraq and from Northern Syria to Sudan?
It is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments have not prepared or planned for the consequences of Islamic turmoil all over the Middle East. The refugee crisis should have been expected and a disaster was waiting to happen ever since the Arab Spring failed to produce an Islamic State in Egypt and ISIS emerged in Syria. But Islamic countries have ignored the humanitarian crisis resulting from the barbaric behavior of the Islamic State.
The more you know about Islam, the more there is not to like.
H/T: Nicolai Sennels
Banned in some countries. A UK seasoned journalist, historical author attempts to find archaeological & literary evidence for the alleged Arabian Prophet of Islam outside of the Qur’an/Hadiths having access to the latest findings, going to the lands in question to look for key historical evidence.
But that is exactly what we have seen from Islam, from day 1, and it still goes on till this day.
Fareed Zakaria: The caveat, “Islam today,” is important. The central problem with Maher’s and Harris’s analyses are that they take a reality — extremism in Islam — and describe it in ways that suggest it is inherent in Islam. Maher says Islam is “the only religion that acts like the Mafia, that will [expletive] kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.” He’s right about the viciousness but wrong to link it to “Islam” — instead of “some Muslims.”
Harris prides himself on being highly analytical — with a PhD, no less. I learned in graduate school that you can never explain a variable phenomenon with a fixed cause. So, if you are asserting that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant — “the mother lode of bad ideas” — then, since Islam has been around for 14 centuries, we should have seen 14 centuries of this behavior.
I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)
—Islam’s prophet Muhammad, as recorded in the most important collection of Muhammad’s “traditions,” Sahih Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220
There is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite the surfeit of contemporary apologetics. Dr. Tina Magaard—a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual analysis—published detailed research findings in 2005 (summarized in 2007) comparing the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard concluded from her hard data-driven analyses:
The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree [emphasis added]. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with.
Riveting upon the Assyrian, Chaldean, and Syrian Orthodox Christian populations of northern Iraq (then Mesopotamia), and eastern Anatolia, historian David Gaunt’s pioneering 2006 study described their horrific plight under the Ottomans in 1915. Gaunt noted that “an intense extermination of the Christians was completed in a short period between June and September 1915”—killings on a grisly scale of magnitude far beyond ISIL’s exploits. Most of the 250,000 eventually slaughtered during the years between 1914 and 1919 were killed in this compressed 4-month time frame.
Islam is both inherently violent and intolerant, in fact, it’s Islam’s hallmark, with subjugation and supremacy its final goal. You have to twist the historical record to come away with the notion that Islam has behaved throughout its history much like all other belief systems in size and comparison.
It never was a ”Spring” to begin with.
The League of Nations’ Mandates for the ME and elsewhere, was the first ever ”democracy project”, the only state in the ME region to take it seriously and produce a western style democracy, were the Jews, because they had (still do) a working civil society while the Arabs did not, and still don’t. Islam is not conducive to a free and democratic (pluralistic) society, and it can’t be imposed, so a heavy handed form of government is the only thing that can keep that uncivil society in check.
It’s also the reason as to why these uncivil societies are doomed to be a 3rd world (non-developing) states, they have to be under a heavy handed fist to keep them in line. History has proven that top down orchestrated societies are not dynamic, but moribund, hence their need to steal the wealth of neighboring states. The only reason why Islam had its ”golden period(s)”, is that it was living off the booty and technical advances of those they had conquered.
These 7th century Muslim states in our modern period are in fact living on borrowed time, they have nothing to offer other than the bounty (oil) provided by the West, and one day, will cease to be of influence. It’s one of the reasons why they look with glee at the West’s opening of doors to them. Our task is to resist it, change course, and root out that which has managed to take hold in our own societies, and prepare for the eventual outcome of a Muslim world implosion and their slipping into insignificance.
By Shadi Hamid
After the uprisings of 2011, the Arab world seemed to be moving towards democracy, but the recent resurgence of strongmen have illustrated just how deep certain divides still are — and how desperate people are for stability.
In the tense build-up to the 2011 uprisings, Arabs seemed to be turning away from dictatorship. Poll after poll showed that more Egyptians, Jordanians and Moroccans believed democracy was the best form of government than did Americans or, say, Poles. But “democracy” in the abstract could mean just about anything as long as it was positive. It was one thing to believe in democracy and quite another to practice it.
In Egypt, the loss of faith in not just democracy, but in the very notion of politics, was particularly striking. A not insignificant number of Egyptians backed the military coup of July 3, 2013, and then turned away from — or, worse, embraced — the mass killing of their countrymen on August 14, 2013. More than 600 were killed in mere hours, as security forces moved to disperse Muslim Brotherhood supporters from two protest camps in Cairo. This happened exactly a year ago — and will remain a dark blot on the country’s history. It, in a sense, is what the Arab Spring had managed to unleash — not just chaos but something darker.
Before they began to falter, the region’s autocrats, whether in Tunisia, Syria or Yemen, were fond of reminding Westerners that despite their brutality — or perhaps because of it — they were the ones keeping the peace and ensuring stability. As Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in a televised address just 10 days before he was ousted, “The events of the last few days require us all as a people and as a leadership to choose between chaos and stability.” In a sense, he and his fellow autocrats were right — there was a tradeoff. These, after all, were weak states, divided by religion, ideology, sect and clan.
I’m glad that we have excellent researchers and writers like Raymond Ibrahim.
Last November Raymond Ibrahim was interviewed by Egyptian reporter Sherif Awad. The interview appeared in several Egyptian magazines and websites, as well as American ones, such as the Westchester Guardian. The interview follows:
Awad: Can you tell us about your family and their profession and how and why they decided to migrate to the US? Tell us about your childhood and the intercultural elements that shaped it until you decided to select your profession.
Ibrahim: My father and mother, both Copts, one from Cairo the other Alexandria, left Egypt in the late 1960s for America, where I was born. They left Egypt for a better life. I grew up speaking both Arabic and English and visited Egypt with my parents often when I was young. It was natural, then, for me formally to study the region, its languages (primarily Arabic, which I already spoke), its history and conflicts, in college. Growing up in Egypt in the 1940s-1960s, my parents experienced little by way of direct persecution, but they did experience religious discrimination, and that was one of the reasons they came to America, for better opportunities.
Awad: In regards to your MA thesis and book about the Battle of Yarmuk, can you compare its events to the happenings that led to the ending of Islamic rule in Andalusia? Do you consider researching the Islamic empire in Andalusia? About the Crusades?
Ibrahim: Yes, I am very interested in early and medieval Islamic history, especially military history vis-à-vis Christendom. Not only are there parallels between those various battles and encounters, but indeed, the patterns continue to this very day. Most in the West are wholly unaware that to Islamist groups like al-Qaeda, they see the conflict as a continuum of history—as jihadis (mujahidin) fighting infidel “crusaders.” This is precisely why I have an interest in the long history of the conflict—most of which is concealed from people in the West by the forces of “political correctness,” which predominate in the classrooms, the government, and the media.
Awad: You researched al-Qaeda’s early history but I want to ask about 9/11 and how far al-Qaeda was involved, because many conspiracy theorists claim that certain US entities have something to do with those events.
Ibrahim: Well, of course, conspiracy theorists say what they say. And for my part, I can’t prove anything; we work with the information we are given, ultimately. For example, we were told that Osama bin Laden was killed; but others say he wasn’t. And no one can really prove either position (since his body was purportedly and hurriedly dropped in the ocean). So, while I do not necessarily discount what are sneeringly dismissed as “conspiracy theories,” in this profession, one must articulate one’s position within the reasonable bounds of what is collectively deemed “truth.”
Awad: In your book Crucified Again, you shed light on the troubles faced by the Christian minorities across the Arab world. It was followed by new articles about the attack on the church of Waraq neighborhood in Cairo (which is next to my house in KitKat by the way). Do you differentiate between tolerance and fundamentalism in Islam or do you think that Islam is broadly violent right now?
Ibrahim: This is a good, important, and ultimately complicated question. To be brief: I always distinguish between Muslims, the humans, and Islam, the religion. Muslims, like all humans, are free agents who are capable of doing anything; they, like all people, can be tolerant or they can be intolerant. Likewise, they, like all peoples of all religions, can interpret their religion anyway they want (or simply ignore its tenets). That said, when it comes to the actual religion of Islam, it is inaccurate to describe it as “tolerant” of non-Muslims—certainly not by modern, 21st century standards. Plain and simple, Islam teaches that non-Muslims are inferior to Muslims. Quran 9:29 calls on Muslims to subjugate the People of the Book (ahl al-kitab), until they pay jizya while feeling humiliated. The prophet of Islam commanded Muslims not to greet non-Muslims and to push them to the side of the road. One can go on and on with examples (see my book Crucified Againfor many more with complete documentation). Ultimately, this suggests that the pious Muslim who tries to follow the Sharia will be more intolerant of non-Muslims than the casual or “cultural” Muslim—and both types exist.
With one sword dripping with blood after the other.
Arabic-language websites reported earlier this week that the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which throughout the course of the war against the Assad government has committed any number of atrocities — from decapitating “infidels” to burning churches — has successfully “forced” two Armenian Christian families to convert to Islam.
A video accompanies some of these reports. In it, what appears to be an elderly Armenian man stands alongside an Islamic cleric who announces the Christian man’s conversion to Islam — to thunderous cries of “Allahu Akbar!” In his exultation, the cleric makes exuberant statements like “You see, we have no honor without Islam — without crying aloud that ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet!'” (This appears to be another way of saying, “Only by joining our winning team can you ever escape dishonor,” the lot of all non-Muslim “infidels.”)
The cleric also adds that, because the man is the head of his household, his Christian wife and children are all now Muslim as well — “all praise to Allah!” And if they reject their new Islamic identity, they become “apostates,” a crime punishable by death.
Andrew Bostom lays the case.
(originally published as “Dross in Yet Another Islamic ‘Golden Age’ ”, The American Thinker, September 5, 2010; Revised in 2012 and re-published in Sharia Versus Freedom, pp. 383-89)
The myth of a golden age of Islamic rationalism plays a critical role in maintaining the somnolence of America’s establishment in grasping the implacability of jihad. Currently, the Mutazilites, typified by the Abbasid Muslim rulers al-Mamun (reigned 813-833) and al-Mutasim (reigned 833-842), are being lionized as avatars of the kind of “rationalist freethinking” which might have spared both Muslims and non-Muslims from the consequences of traditionalist Islamic irredentism. 1
These views are a contemporary repackaging of idealized portrayals initially put forth by Heinrich Steiner in 1865 and reiterated afterward by late 19th- and early 20th-century writers. 2 All such romantic and apologetic portrayals –past and present—maintain that the Mutazilites were “liberal” rationalists and freethinkers.
But these roseate characterizations are grossly oversimplified and ahistorical. The Mutazilites were pious Muslims motivated by Islamic religious concerns, first and foremost. The wistful projection of “Mutazilism” as a “squandered” modernizing force for Islam is an untenable hypothesis, debunked long ago by Ignaz Goldziher, one of the preeminent Western scholars of Islam. 3
Goldziher acknowledges the “one salutary consequence” of the Mutazilites’ ruthless endeavors was bringing “aql,” reason, “… to bear upon questions of belief.” 4 But he also demonstrates that the Mutazilites exhibited no real manifestation of liberated thinking or any desire “… to throw off chafing shackles, to the detriment of the rigorously orthodox [Islamic] view of life.” 5Moreover, the Mutazilites’ own orthodoxy was accompanied by fanatical intolerance—they orchestrated the “Mihna,” or Muslim Inquisition, under their brutal 9th-century reign during the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate. 6
The Caliph al-Mamun … acting as kind of high priest of the state, ordered his subjects, under pain of severe punishments, to adopt the belief in the created Koran. His successor al-Mutasim, followed in his footsteps. Orthodox theologians and those who refused to make open declaration of their position were subjected to harassment, imprisonment, and torture. Docile qadis and other religious authorities ready to assume the office of inquisitors, in order to vex and persecute the stiff-necked supporters of the orthodox view, and also those who were not sufficiently unambivalent in declaring themselves for belief in the created Koran, the sole belief in which salvation lay.
And to reject your forced conversion is Islamofuxbia
There’s a reason why the Saudi Flag has a sword as its emblem…….
by Raymond Ibrahim
May 16, 2013
The lost history of Christians forced to convert to Islam—or die—is reemerging, figuratively and literally. According to the BBC: “Pope Francis has proclaimed the first saints of his pontificate in a ceremony [last Sunday] at the Vatican—a list which includes 800 victims of an atrocity carried out by Ottoman soldiers in 1480.They were beheaded in the southern Italian town of Otranto after refusing to convert to Islam.”
The BBC adds in a sidebar: “The ‘Martyrs of Otranto’ were 813 Italians beheaded for defying demands by Turkish invaders to renounce Christianity. The Turks had been sent by Mohammed II, who had already captured the ‘second Rome’ of Constantinople.”
Historical texts throughout the centuries are filled with similar anecdotes, including the “60 Martyrs of Gaza,” Christian soldiers who were executed for refusing Islam during the 7th century Islamic invasion of Jerusalem. Seven centuries later, during the Islamic invasion of Georgia, Christians refusing to convert were forced into their church and set on fire. Witnesses for Christ lists 200 anecdotes of Christians killed—including some burned at the stake, thrown on iron spikes, dismembered, stoned, stabbed, shot at, drowned, pummeled to death, impaled and crucified—for refusing to embrace Islam.
If history is shocking, the fact is, today, Christians—men, women, and children—are still being forced to convert to Islam. Pope Francis alluded to their sufferings during the same ceremony: “As we venerate the martyrs of Otranto, let us ask God to sustain those many Christians who, in these times and in many parts of the world, right now, still suffer violence, and give them the courage and fidelity to respond to evil with good.”
Consider some recent anecdotes:
In Pakistan, a “devoted Christian” was butchered by Muslim men “with multiple axe blows [24 per autopsy] for refusing to convert to Islam.” Another two Christian men returning from church were accosted by six Muslims who tried to force them to convert to Islam, but “the two refused to renounce Christianity.” Accordingly, the Muslims severely beat them, yelling they must either convert “or be prepared to die. . . . the two Christians fell unconscious, and the young Muslim men left assuming they had killed them.”
In Bangladesh some 300 Christian children were abducted in 2012 and sold to Islamic schools, where “imams force them to abjure Christianity.” The children are then instructed in Islam and beaten. After full indoctrination they are asked if they are “ready to give their lives for Islam,” presumably by becoming jihadi suicide-bombers. (Even here the historic patterns are undeniable: for centuries, Christian children were forcibly taken, converted to and indoctrinated in Islam, trained to be jihadis extraordinaire, and then unleashed on their former Christian families. Such were the Janissaries and Mamelukes.)
In Palestine in 2012, Christians in Gaza protested over the “kidnappings and forced conversions of some former believers to Islam.” The ever-dwindling Christian community banged on a church bell while chanting, “With our spirit, with our blood we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Jesus.”
Just as happened throughout history, Muslims today regularly “invite” Christians to Islam, often presenting it as the only cure to their sufferings—sufferings caused by Muslims in the first place.
In Pakistan, a Christian couple was arrested on a false charge and severely beaten by police. The pregnant wife was “punched, kicked and beat” as her interrogators threatened to kill her unborn baby. A policeman offered to drop the theft charge if the husband would only “renounce Christianity and convert to Islam,” but the man refused.
In Uzbekistan, a 26-year-old Christian woman, partially paralyzed from youth, and her elderly mother were violently attacked by invaders who ransacked their home, confiscating “icons, Bibles, religious calendars, and prayer books.” At the police department, the paralyzed woman was “offered to convert to Islam.” She refused, and the judge “decided that the women had resisted police and had stored the banned religious literature at home and conducted missionary activities. He fined them 20 minimum monthly wages each.”
This is the history of Islam. In weakness, it is tolerant and “inclusive,” in strength, it is aggressive and demanding of conformity — just as its prophet’s career suggests: when he was in Mecca outnumbered, Muhammad preached tolerance; when he went to Medina and became a warlord, he preached war. Compare the Mecca verses of the Koran to the Medina verses for an idea.
Remember that the Philippine government reached a ‘peace deal’ with Muslim separatists this past October 7th? They are only fooling themselves that this will end it. Some new perceived slight will be invented to try and move the goal posts forward to full statehood. Then the state itself will be at continual war with the Philippine people until they submit to Islam.
So to with the Thai government. They are still acting under the false premise that these Muslims are only reacting in the way they are, due to some ”injustice” by the government. With each act of appeasement, they only embolden these Muslims to try for more. Remember, each time the Israeli government tried to reach an accommodation with the Arabs in the disputed territories, it was flat out rejected.
That is the nature of Islam.
H/T: Fjordman via Jihad Watch
Suspected Muslim militants have shot dead 11 people including three paramilitary rangers in a single day of bloodshed in Thailand’s insurgency-plagued deep south, police said Tuesday.
The authorities said in August they were holding informal peace talks with some Muslim insurgent groups, in an apparent policy reversal that followed a spike in attacks.
“Some militant groups don’t want a peaceful solution so they look for an opportunity to terrorize people,” southern army spokesman Colonel Pramote Prom-in told AFP on Tuesday.
“We’re trying to find measures to prevent this kind of violence but still haven’t succeeded,” he added.
The militants are not thought to be part of a global jihad movement but are rebelling against a history of perceived discrimination against ethnic Malay Muslims by successive Thai governments and alleged rights abuses by the army.
IT IS ABOUT ISLAM.
Bill Maher, a man with whom I disagree with on just about every issue imaginable, has a pretty good handle on the issue of Islam. He’s a Leftist that really does understand that it’s not ”Islamofauxbia” when they really are trying to kill you. That said, I believe that the panel of speakers, (included are Chris Matthews and a CNN representative) don’t totally get the entire picture, though they come pretty close.
Their main point is true, that Islamic political/Islamic religious-political leaders do in fact wind their people up, for their own purposes. The way I view it however, is that that is the entire history of Islam in a nutshell. At no point in time throughout the history of Islam, was there not an Islamic leader ”winding the people up” for war, and/or for further subjugation of the ‘infidel’.
The present situation is not an anomaly, this is the way Islamic society has always been structured, and why it’s been so devastatingly successful throughout its history. So the actual issue is, the ease in which the Islamic system allows for manipulation of the large numbers of its somewhat moderate people, into raging fanatics, and the great successes that have resulted from it .
There is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout the world would view the insulting of Islamic symbols a punishable offense, and that given the luxury of hindsight, most of them would reject ”a reformation” of Islam in the same vein that the Catholic church underwent, knowing full well where it will lead. The right to criticize Islamic norms, and the mocking of it religious symbols.
So the panel on Maher’s show can never hope to answer the obvious question that Chris Matthews asks after he admits to all, that what they are saying about Islam is true, ”what do we do about it?” They haven’t an answer for that one, but it’s indeed obvious to the rest of us, in view of its entire history, a complete separation from it wherever possible, which in itself is a desperate measure, and nearly an impossible thing to do, but it has to be discussed and implemented. It’s the fundamental right to discriminate, especially in the context of societal/cultural survival.
Click the link to the Maher video at Real Clear Politics and watch the vid.
It’s as believable as Imam Feisal Rauf being spotted at Oktoberfest guzzling down dregs of beer.
by Andrew G. Bostom
Imam Feisal Rauf, “founder and visionary” of the Cordoba Initiative,  apparently sees the construction of a triumphal mosque within the 9/11 World Trade Center attack’s zone of destruction  as a fulfillment of his vision for Islam in America. As Rauf stated in his 2004What’s Right with Islam, a work limited to treacly Islamic propaganda: 
For many centuries, Islam inspired a civilization that was particularly tolerant and pluralistic. … Great philosophers such as Maimonides were free to create their historic works within the pluralistic culture of Islam.
Rauf envisions this invented past as a model for the future “Sharia-compliant” America he desires. 
The late self-proclaimed “contrarian,” Christopher Hitchens, asserted his distaste for those in charge of the Cordoba Initiative, especially Rauf, characterizing the imam’s utterances about the 9/11 atrocities as “shady and creepy.”  Yet even Hitchens upheld the Andalusian myth of Cordoba, calling it: 
The site of an astonishing cultural synthesis, best associated with the names of Averroes ibn-Rushd and Moses Maimonides …
Hitchens gleaned this, apparently, from his reading of the pseudo-academic apologetics of María Rosa Menocal’s The Ornament of the World,  which he insisted was “the finest recent book on the subject.”
Notwithstanding Hitchens’ uninformed praise, Menocal’s superficial hagiography ignores the early to mid-20th century studies of Miguel Asin Palacios,  and Evariste Levi-Provencal,  Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq’s 1978 study,  and more recently, Jane Gerber’s focused 1994 analysis debunking the “Golden Age” myth in Muslim Spain as: 
It is a question that few have thought—or dared—to ask. Virtually everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, takes for granted that the prophet of Islam lived and led in seventh-century Arabia.
But this widely accepted story begins to crumble on close examination, as Robert Spencer shows in his eye-opening new book.
In his blockbuster bestseller The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer revealed the shocking contents of the earliest Islamic biographical material about the prophet of Islam. Now, in Did Muhammad Exist?, he uncovers that material’s surprisingly shaky historical foundations. Spencer meticulously examines historical records, archaeological findings, and pioneering new scholarship to reconstruct what we can know about Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the early days of Islam. The evidence he presents challenges the most fundamental assumptions about Islam’s origins.
Did Muhammad Exist? reveals:
Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but unflinching look at the origins of one of the world’s major religions. While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never received the same treatment on any significant scale.
BREITBART: Can Muslims live in a democratic country that is tolerant of others’ views? Or are there fundamental and philosophical differences that will forever divide the West and Islam? For many, 9/11 represents how incompatible these two systems really are.
Dr. Fouad Ajami, originally from Lebanon and winner of this year’s Breindel Journalism Award, joins us with Ambassador Charles Hill, who served as an adviser to Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, to discuss these issues.
NOTE: Ajami is delusional, and his colleague’s line that Islamists are not Islam… is ahistorical.
Islam proven a sham, the Koran is made up of different languages making it incomprehensible to read, no matter how hard one sways the head or slams it into the carpet. One can almost envision the whole facade collapsing under the weight of evidence!
This is required reading. Thanks to the Gates of Vienna for publishing this most interesting piece that blows apart the myth that the Koran was first written in pure Arabic. Those of us who spend a lot of time blogging about Islam, Jihad, and Islamization, have been visited at one time or another by Islamic apologists claiming that we in the Counterjihad haven’t the expertise to judge the Koran, Islam or Muslims since we are neither Muslims ourselves nor speakers of Arabic.
It was a lame argument to begin with, most arguments coming from Muslims are in fact lame, but that doesn’t stop them from proffering them. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world do not speak Arabic as a first language, nor do they understand for the most part, what they are saying when reciting the Koran.
El-Cid, writing at the, Gates of Vienna, takes it multiple steps further in exposing the myth behind the language of the Koran itself, revealing its true origins which hail not from the heavens, but from the mix of local languages and dialects of the region. KGS
El-Cid: “the Koran does not speak pure Arabic, but a confused speech permeated with Aramaic words instead.”
“much of the Koran is not in Arabic, and much of it is incomprehensible, not because it contains some deep inscrutable meaning, but because it simply is written in a language other then pure Arabic.”
God Does Not Speak Arabic! — Part 1
The Baron: Our guest-essayist El Cid returns with the first installment of a three-part account of the linguistic origins of the Koran. According to his analysis, not only is the Koran not quite what everybody thinks it is, but it is also written in a different language than is commonly assumed.
Koranic Arabic is the cement that holds Islam together, and is both its strength and its fatal weakness. A weakness, because according to Christoph Luxenberg, once the flaws and inconsistencies of the strange Arabic of the Koran are revealed, the Muslims’ false claim that it is God’s perfect and incorruptible language is exposed to reveal the truth that it is not. Not only is it not perfect, it is of human and not divine origin. The overwhelming evidence suggests that it is not even pure Arabic, but a “patois” or a mixture of Aramaic and the Arabic dialect of Mecca!
I have several copies of the Koran in my library, a few in English, some in Spanish, but most in Arabic. One very ornate Koran with the following words on its cover written in a complicated enigmatic Arabic script boldly and confidently proclaims that it is “The Guidance for Mankind.”
For Muslims the Koran is truly an enigma, and when read in prayer the rhythm and cadence of its words have a narcotic effect on their senses and mind. A recitation of the Koran rolls off one’s tongue with the rhythmic simplicity of modern a day “rap” song. For millions of Muslims who have no clue about its language and memorize it word for word, this is all they have. Its narcotic affect permeates the believer in much the same way a child is comforted with repetitive and familiar sounds he does not understand.
The first line of the Koran is a good example of this. This and hundreds of other lines are read over and over again by young Muslims who don’t even understand their meaning, and many of whom are illiterate in their own native tongues. Such is the grip that these so-called “God words” have on a quarter of humanity.
NOTE: Just wait until the actual person of Mohamed is scrutinized, even more so than the Koran. The Tundra Tabloids wagers that his very existence as a real person can be adequately repudiated. Just wait and see, the real exposing of the Mohammedan ideology and it’s supposed founder is just in its infancy.