Book Review Of “The Sword of the Prophet” By Serge Trifkovic

book_trifkovic Book Review Of "The Sword of the Prophet" By Serge Trifkovic

The book The Sword of the Prophet written by Dr. Serge (a.k.a. Srdja) Trifkovic of Serbian extract, is similar to many such post-Cold War era books (written by pseudo-experts like Judith Miller & Co.) that are written to keep alive the perceived “threat” of Islam before our eyes, while guaranteeing themselves profitable fees, consultancies, recurrent appearances in TV and lucrative book contracts. To these bunch of bigoted, eavesdropping, lying and self-promoting journalists, in these days, especially after 9/11, there is no better and easier way to draw attention and sell books than to demean and dehumanize Muslims and Islam. It does not take too much insight to find common grounds that motivates these bigots.

I think it is important to know who they are and from what background they emerge in order to judge the value of their contribution and to understand the quality of their thoughts and ideas. A scrutiny of their educational background would reveal that these hate-writers do not have any expertise in Islam. What binds them together is a common hatred for Islam and Muslims.

Serge Trifkovic, a graduate of the University of Southampton, UK, is identified as one who pursued a post-doctoral research at the Hoover Institution, CA, and then worked as a TV broadcaster and later as a journalist covering southeast Europe for the U.S. News & World Report and Washington Post. He is a frequent contributor and, since 1998, foreign affairs editor to the Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, where his Serbian ultra-nationalistic stand is easily discernible. It is not clear if he had visited any Muslim country, outside his native Serbia in former Yugoslavia, a state that was guilty of ethnic cleansing of Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims. His field of study had nothing to do with either the people or the religion that he writes about in his hate-book The Sword of the Prophet. Yet his ignorance did not dissuade him from venting his venom against Muslims in this spiteful and inaccurate work.

What qualifies Trifkovic as an “expert” on Islam today? In the Foreword to his book, he himself confesses of his hatred or as he mildly puts it “lack of a priori admiration” for Islam. As one may also recall, during the genocide of Muslims in the Balkans, he tried to defend the case for his murderous Serbian leader — now being tried for crimes against humanity in The Hague. While the whole world saw the savagery of the Serbian Christians against unarmed Muslims in Bosnia, he blamed the victim Muslims by stating that the latter had brought it down upon themselves through “self-inflicted atrocities and stage-managed massacres.”1 What a criminal and sick mind to invent something like this! In a keynote speech at the Ball Union League Club, Chicago, in June 7, ?96, he dared to equate the genocide as honor-killing by stating that “Bosnia is honor, and Yugoslavia a tragedy, but there was no ‘holocaust’.” To him, the total tally of Muslim victims in Bosnia was not 250,000 (as stated by President Clinton, addressing the nation on Nov. 27, ’95), but could have been as small as only 2,500, i.e., a mere 1% of the reported casualty.2 He actively condemned the jurisdiction of the Hague Tribunal (ICTFY) that was established by the Security Council of the UN in 1993 on the basis of Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Resolution 827) for investigating crimes against humanity in former Yugoslavia. He also opposed the deployment of NATO and UN forces in the Balkans to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims. When his propaganda failed to dissuade the Clinton Administration, he disappeared from spotlight for some time until the tragedy of 9/11 occurred. When he surfaced this time he came up with his Mein Kampf. That basically sums up a very disturbed and sadistic individual with a desire to settle old scores.

It is said that falsehood oft repeated achieves the veneer of truth and some are sure to swallow it. Trifkovic’s The Sword of the Prophet is a typical example of such an attempt at disseminating falsehood with doggedness and cruelty. A collection of lies and half-truths, many fuzzy facts, quite a few obsolete and unreliable sources and mindless anecdotes, and a plethora of imagination and false interpretation, therefore, forms the nucleus material for the above work. His hate-book demonstrates his belief that, in the post-Milosevic era, it has fallen on shoulders of ultra-nationalist Serbian zealots like him to carry the mantle of Milosevic, Karadzic & their gang of sub-human brutes to finish their yet unfinished business through misinformation campaign what the half-decade long extermination campaign could not achieve physically in the battle field. It is no wonder that in this endeavor he is aided by all the bigots – from the pujaris of Hindutva (who want to cleanse India of non-Hindu minorities) to Zionists (who want to justify the annexation of entire Palestine by uprooting Palestinians) — as is reflected in several websites belonging to these latter hate-groups which routinely post his lies and distortions. Truly, the fascists, racists and bigots have discovered a prized comrade in their common crusade.

In order to assess Islam and the Muslim world, areas that are unfamiliar to him, Trifkovic uses the writings of discredited journalists and ex-Muslims — whose motivation was nothing honorable either. Such arguments hardly carry any conviction. Truly, the work epitomizes his intolerance against Islam and Muslims, and in that process reveals nothing but his ‘anti-Muslim paranoia and bigotry’. He quotes his peers like Judith Miller and Ibn Warraq voraciously in his book. Because that is the level of his learning or education on the subject he dared write about.

Let us look now at Miller’s work itself that Trifkovic uses. I shall try to be brief in my analysis here since I personally do not see the merit to a more comprehensive criticism of her work (or that of Ibn Warraq). For those interested in a more comprehensive report, they may consider reading the book reviews by scholars of repute. I personally liked the book review by Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University, NY.3

Books like Judith Miller’s “God has ninety-nine names” are symptomatic because, as Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University had rightly pointed out, they are “weapons in the contest to subordinate, beat down, compel and defeat any Arab and Muslim resistance to U.S.-Israeli dominance.” In her book, Miller shows her pro-Israeli, pro-Phalangist (a fascist organization) bias against the uprooted Palestinians. She disdains facts. She prefers quoting endless talks to justify the marauding activities of the Israeli apartheid government and the U.S. support of it. Israel’s war against civilians is simply buried in reams of chatter. Despite her knowledge of violent activities by right-wing Jewish fanatics, she deliberately omitted their murderous acts and promised, instead, to write a book on right-wing Judaism in Israel. It has already been more than six years; still we have not seen that book and probably never will.

And when did Miller became an “expert” on Islam? Truly, her work resembles the work of a name-dropping university student, who begins with an anecdote and then moves to a potted history. She cites unreliable sources that cannot be verified. Her footnotes only prove her ignorance, lamentable prejudices and failures of comprehension. In her summary on the life of the Prophet of Islam, she does not quote one Muslim source, – none of the classical biographies of the Prophet. I wonder if Simon & Schuster, her publisher, would allow a book on Jesus or Moses that does not make a single mention of Christian or Judaic authority. But such pseudo-scholarship, hate literatures are now kosher when it comes to Islam. One wonders what are we coming to in this age?

Miller’s book is full of interviews with whole bunch of self-serving scoundrels that are not too convincing for any objective minded reader. Her use of phrase “my friend” (a few hundred times), rather than convincing her readers, puts them off the track through long digression that follows. And even when she manages to cite certain names, she misidentifies their religion. These lapses in her account would not have been so bad if she was not bent on revealing her intimacy with those individuals. She talks about Jews and their suffering but does not mention Jewish beliefs and laws against the goyim, the rabbinical sanctioned practices of killing, demolitions, deportations, land confiscations, annexation, etc.4 What a jaundiced view of Israel and the Occupied Territories of Palestine!5

After reading her book, one wonders why she truly wrote this book? After all, she confesses that she dislikes all the Arab countries for one reason or another. She does not mention a single thing she loves about the people she wrote about. Arabs have a quality to be open, welcoming, to think well of others, to be hospitable and courteous to their guests. She seldom has a good word for their hospitality. She neither had the nobility to return the courtesy shown to her nor the decency to respect truth and to be as impartial as possible in her evaluation of Muslims. Truly, hers is an epitome of betrayal of trust. Her book is a pathetic display of a deeply partisan journalist, a hostile combatant, who does not and cannot communicate with the people she writes about – the common mass, listen to their conversation, read their books, listen to their music. Yet she has no problem poking fun at the people she met, the history and culture of a place that to her is one long saga of jumbled rage and resonance. In summary, as Prof. Said correctly pointed out, Miller is a shallow and highly-opinionated journalist whose voluminous work is unnecessarily too long and short on facts, analysis, structure and reflection.

What has been stated above about Miller’s book is equally applicable for Trifkovic’s book since the latter copies her blindly. He often uses sources that are dubious. Many of his comments on Islam and the Muslim world are provocative, scornful and provide a philosophy for religious bigotry. His analysis on matters pertaining to Islamic faith lacks scholarship and sensitivity, and is based on innuendo and false interpretation. The Qur’an, which is revered by more than a billion Muslims, deserves greater respect than he is willing to concede. For example, in his discussion around whether Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, he demonstrates his total lack of comprehension and narrow mindedness. He has no problems subscribing to Trinity, a notion which for the past two millennia the Church itself had difficulty in explaining logically not only because of its confusing nature, but has problems with the simple, logical and uncompromising monotheism in Islam, a doctrine that is equally shared among the Jews (see Deut. 6:4).6 He does not disclose the fact that Islam is not alone in its rejection of Trinity. Mahatma Gandhi, when asked about Trinity, said, “Jesus was the son of God only in the sense that we are all children of God. The belief that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is to me contrary to reason.”7

Trifkovic tactfully forgets to share with us the fact that the concept of Trinity is nowhere propounded within the so-called Old Testament and that Jews also reject the concept of original sin and vicarious atonement – concepts that they find repugnant and arguably pagan in origin. His cynicism reveals his blatant Orthodox Christian leanings. In the Mosaic story about Samiri, who lured the Children of Israel into cow worship, he confuses Samiri with the Samaritans, who, according to the Biblical narrative, were implanted into Samaria after the Assyrian conquest (in the 8th century BCE). In his jaundiced view, he fails to see the similarity in how child Moses (Ar. Musa) was cared for in his infancy (Exodus 2:1-9). He doubts the Islamic version of sacrifice of Ishmael (Ar. Isma’il), but has no problem in accepting the Hebrew Biblical version in Gen. 22:2, where it states, “Take thy son, thine only son Isaac.” How is Isaac the only son of Abraham when he was born 14 years later than Ishmael (see Gen. 21:5, 17:25, 16:3)?8 Trifkovic questions the Arabic names for idols of Noah’s time but has no problem accepting Anglicized names for his lord Jesus, or for that matter any of the Biblical Prophets. Did Jesus (or any of the Biblical Prophets) speak English or any of the European languages? What a selective understanding and thoughtlessness! His arguments are so silly and ridiculous on all such matters that it does not warrant reviewing each of those points. His knowledge of Islam is incredibly flawed, weak and childish.

Trifkovic’s knowledge of history is equally defective. While he had no problem deflating the Bosnian Muslim casualty, he had no qualms inflating casualty figures when the victims were non-Muslims. If his sources were reliable, one could accept such, but he provides not a single credible source and chooses propaganda materials from websites that are managed by bigoted non-Muslim fundamentalists who are on a revisionist mode of their own now to alter historical facts, in order to justify their religious-cleansing activities against Muslim minorities.9 He seems to be unaware of what credible historians and great minds of the past two centuries said about Islam and its Prophet. H. G. Wells, e.g., commenting on the impact of Prophet’s last sermon, states,

…they established in the world a great tradition of dignified fair dealing, they breathe a spirit of generosity, and they are human and workable. They created a society more free from widespread cruelty and social oppression than any society had ever been in the world before.10

Writing about Islam, he further states,

It (Islam) was full of the spirit of kindliness, generosity and brotherhood; it was a simple and understandable religion….Against it were pitted Judaism, which had made a racial hoard of God; Christianity, talking and preaching endlessly now of trinities, doctrines, and heresies no ordinary man could make head or tail of; and Mazdaism, the cult of the Zoroastrian Magi, who had inspired the crucifixion of Mani.11

Of the Mughal rule in India, Wells says,

…(Mogul dynasty) marks the most splendid age that had hitherto dawned upon India.12

Mahatma Gandhi said:

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind? I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle.13

Sir George Bernard Shaw wrote:

I have studied him (Muhammad) ? the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.14

James Michener wrote,

No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea.15

Writing about Islamic civilization, Bertrand Russell stated:

From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished. What was lost to Christendom at this time (699-1000) was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary.
16

Trifkovic, in short, is typical of the cynical anti-Muslim hawks. His book is trash and falls under the category of hate-books. It implants prejudice and harvests hatred. Naturally, in the aftermath of 9/11 his capacity as a “pen-pusher” has endeared him among Muslim-haters and Islam-bashers. We learn from history that fascism is always preceded by carefully concocted ideological distortions. It is writings like these that make our world more divided than ever before.

Books of this kind do not belong to the shelves of serious researchers except those who are searching for dirt and filth. Truly, if one were to search for such materials, there is no shortage of such in any community.17 bismika-tombstone Book Review Of "The Sword of the Prophet" By Serge Trifkovic

Footnotes

  1. Kosovo: The Real Story, The Chronicles and the Rockford Institute (1999). http://www.inwave.com []
  2. Srdja Trifkovic, The Hague ‘Tribunal’: Bad Justice, Worse Politics, keynote speech at the S.B.A. Annual Scholarship Ball Union League Club, Chicago, June 7, 1996. []
  3. A Devil Theory of Islam, review article by Prof. Edward Said, The Nation, August 12/19, 1996. In review of Miller’s work I shall paraphrase Prof. Said’s arguments, wherever applicable. []
  4. See, e.g., Exodus 15:3; Deut. 13:6-10; Psalms 144:1; Jeremiah 13:14, 48:10; Book of Numbers; Joshua; Esther (ch. 8 and 9); Mishnah Torah; Sanhedrin 57a, 58b; Baba Kamma 37b, 113b; Soferim 15, Rule 10; Abhodah Zarah (26b); Zohar (I, 25a), (I, 38b, and 39a); Ialkut Simoni (245c. n. 772); Hilhoth Akum (X, 1) []
  5. Baruch Goldstein, a religious Jew, killed about 30-40 Arab Muslims during their prayers at the Patriarchs mosque in Hebron. He had apparently taken literally the commandment in the Book of Esther to wipe out descendants of Haman, an enemy of ancient Persia’s Jews. The right-wing settlers in Israel’s territories agreed he had followed God’s commandment and said that making peace with their Arab enemies was tantamount to violating God’s will. [Encyclopedia Brit.] []
  6. Islamic monotheism is void of Jewish exclusiveness, as noted by H. G. Wells in The Outline of History, p. 485 []
  7. See Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi; also Missionaries in India by Arun Shourie. []
  8. Gen. 16:3 shows that Hagar was Abraham’s (Ar. Ibrahim) legitimate wife and not a concubine. Gen. 17:25 shows that Ishmael, Abraham’s “son”, was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised. []
  9. See, e.g., my articles: Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb?s Religious Intolerance: Truth or Fiction? (pub. News From Bangladesh website: http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/dec/20/f20122001.htm); Hindutva and Historical Revisionism, pub. NFB (Oct. ?10) http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/oct/10/g10102002.htm . See also NPR Morning Edition report on Indian textbooks: http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=872595 []
  10. H. G. Wells in The Outline of History, Garden City Books, NY, (1961), p. 484 []
  11. ibid., p. 485 []
  12. ibid., p. 577 []
  13. Statement published in Young India (1924) []
  14. The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1, no. 8 (1936) []
  15. James Michener, Islam: The Misunderstood Religion, Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70. []
  16. Bertrand Russell in History of Western Philosophy, London, 1948, p. 419. []
  17. Here is a small list of such books that provide plenty of materials that might be objectionable to others: The Ramayana of Valmiki 1:13:24-33; Brahmavaivarta Purana 3:8:19-33, 83-8, 3:9:1-26; Mahabharata Adiparvan 95; Kurma Purana 2:38:39-41; cf. Haracaritacintamani 10:74; Yagisvaramahatmya 26a. 14; Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 49:23b-46, 74-86; Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 10:96-8, 163-8, 193-202, 213-14; cf. Kurma Purana (1818), 2:37:33-9; Bhavisya Purana 3:4:17:67-78; Brahma Purana 72:18; Vamana Purana 27:56-9; cf. Siva Purana, Jnanasamhita 18:62-8; Siva Purana 2:3:49:3-10; Skanda Purana 1:1:26:15-22; Siva Purana, Jnanasamhita 49:65-80; Skanda Purana 3:40:1-59; Satapatha Brahmana 1:7:4:1-7; Skanda Purana 6:153:2-27; Mahabharata I:203:15-26; cf. Skanda Purana 5:3:150:18, 6:153:2-27; Matsya Purana 158:27-50; Padma Purana 5:41:118-42; cf. Haracaritacintamani 9:196-221; Skanda Purana 5:1:34:60-6; Siva Purana 3:22:45-55; 3:23:1-36; Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 9:46-61; Matsya Purana 155:1-34, 156:1-40, 157:1-24, 158:1-27; Padma Purana 5:41:1-118; Skanda Purana 1:2:27:58-84; 1:2:28:1-14; 1:2:29:1-81; Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 10:49-55; Padma Purana 1:56:15-53, 4:101:174-9; Saura Purana 62:5-12; Padma Purana 5:26:91-125; cf. Linga Purana 1:106:1-27; Matsya Purana 252:5-19, 179:7-186; Kurma Purana 1:16:141-222; — Mahabharata 13:81:1-86; Brahmavaivarta Purana 4:47:11-45; Rig Veda 10:86:6; Jaiminiya Brahmana 3:199-200; Satapatha Brahmana 13:5:2:1-9; Hinduism Unveiled: Forbidden Verses in Hindu Scriptures. Presented by Hinduism Unveiled Enterprises; Oh You Hindu Awake by Dr. Kamal Chatterjee, pub. by Hadwa Dom, Dalitstan Journal; The Talmud: Judaism’s Holiest Book Unmasked by Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, St. Petersburg Printing office of the Imperial Academy of Sciences 1892; The Truth about the Talmud by Michael A. Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley, Independent History & Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816; The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, Penguin Books. []

7 Comments

  1. Robert Spencer requested Karen Armstrong for a dialog on Islam. Anyone knows when it is taking place?

  2. Christianity is hate Religion = KKK + NAZI

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm The Dark Bible:Atrocities (only a few)

    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.” — Samuel P. Huntington, Jewish author of “Clash of Civilizations”

    – ” Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:”- MATTHEW 10:34-35

    – ” A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!” – (Jeremiah 48:10)

    – Jesus said : ” But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and SLAY THEM BEFORE me.”– LUKE 19:27

    -(Isaiah:13:16)-(Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.)

    – (Psalms:137:9)-(Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.)

    Bible is the book KKK and NANI not GOD ! Read : http://islamplanet.jeeran.com/.....peace.html Is bible the book of mercy and peace ??

    Whiteman EVILE CRETURE :

    – “For goodness sake, will they hear, will white people hear what we are trying to say? Please, all we are asking you to do is to recognize that we are humans, too.” – BISHOP Desmond TUTU ( bishop of south Africa)

    – (Hosea:13:16)-(Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.)

    – Kill Nonbelievers : ” They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. “- (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

    -(Numbers:31:17)-(Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.)

    -(Numbers:31:18)-(But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.)

    HATE to human :

    “I am fifty-two years of age. I am a bishop in the Anglican Church, and a few people might be constrained to say that I was reasonably responsible. In the land of my birth I cannot vote, whereas a young person of eighteen can vote. And why? Because he or she possesses that wonderful biological attribute — a white skin.” — Bishop desmond Tutu

    -http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

    -http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

    -http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

    -http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/For20000803e.html ‘Bible Too Violent for Kids’

    ” Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times “by the sword” to get them to abandon their faith “.– Uri Avnery (jewish Writter)

    “My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.” -Michael H. Hart THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY , NEW YORK, Hart Publishing Company , INC

    http://www.islamherald.com/asp.....rowing.asp Who says that Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth ?? Some people say that Islam was spread by the sword. What is the sword of Islam now that so many people are compelled to embrace this faith? Here are some excerpts from reputed news services around the world.

  3. Doctor Maybe:”Dr. Ergun Caner Response/Conclusion:
    Date: January 23, 2006:“Islam does not demand the death of all infidels, but does prescribe violence against the infidels in certain circumstances, but at anytime during the violence, the Muslim should work hard to try to broker a peace with the infidel, even if it will entail a great sacrifice. But, at no time are innocent civilians are to be targeted in
    that violence.”
    http://www.erguncaner.com/new/…..004.asp#11″

    Isn’t that Caner quoting the Muslim he is debating with? Notice he goes on to say:

    “The salient point is, the following are not verse that I cite alone! In a constant stream, Islamic leaders such as al-Zwahiri, Rahman, Osama, and a myriad of others, not only call for the death of unbelievers, but they justify it by citing the Qur’an and the Hadith.

    “Do not take my word for it. Here are just a few links I offer to prove that my original statement was correct– These people believe that Allah has commanded the death of the unbelievers, and they continue to hold tremendous influence:

    “http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=20824&dgn=4

    “http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=7328&dgn=4

    “http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-EnglishAsk_Scholar/FatwaE/Fatwa
    E&cid=1119503544134

    “Please notice- these are Islamic sites, not unbelievers who take the teachings out of context. These are answers from an Imam.”

    So Caner seems to be arguing that Islamic teachers do teach the murder of non-Muslims.

  4. Sure!

    Dr. Ergun Caner Response/Conclusion:
    Date: January 23, 2006

    “Islam does not demand the death of all infidels, but does prescribe violence against the infidels in certain circumstances, but at anytime during the violence, the Muslim should work hard to try to broker a peace with the infidel, even if it will entail a great sacrifice. But, at no time are innocent civilians are to be targeted in
    that violence.”
    http://www.erguncaner.com/new/.....004.asp#11

    ergun

  5. DoctorMaybe said on 12 December 2006:”Do you agree with Egrun Caner’s remark that Islam does not exhort its believers to kill all infidels?”

    I am unaware of Egrun Caner or those remarks, so I can hardly make any sensible comment on them. May I ask for a source that I can check and so I can get back to you? For what it is worth, I do not think Islam exhorts its believer to kill all infidels. At least not all the time. Just too often.

  6. Hagoo:Actually such arguments, especially from ex-Muslims, are highly convincing.

    Do you agree with Egrun Caner’s remark that Islam does not exhort its believers to kill all infidels?

  7. HS:”What qualifies Trifkovic as an “expert” on Islam today?”

    A good question. What qualifies someone like Karen Armstrong except, of course, that you like her message and favorable views of Islam? Can we agree that in your eyes an “expert” on Islam is someone who agrees with you?

    HS:”While the whole world saw the savagery of the Serbian Christians against unarmed Muslims in Bosnia, he blamed the victim Muslims by stating that the latter had brought it down upon themselves through “self-inflicted atrocities and stage-managed massacres.”1 What a criminal and sick mind to invent something like this!”

    Actually the whole world did not see Christians do any such things. They saw Serbian nationalists, Croat nationalists and Bosnians or various ideological persuations do such things. Who knows what sort of sick mind invents such things but some sick minds do – as some Muslims in Iraq have done recently by claiming some Shia burnt some Sunnis to death. Some Muslims do, in fact, frequently invent such stories.

    HS:”In a keynote speech at the Ball Union League Club, Chicago, in June 7, ?96, he dared to equate the genocide as honor-killing by stating that “Bosnia is honor, and Yugoslavia a tragedy, but there was no ‘holocaust’.””

    Are you sure you heard him properly? It is more likely he said “Bonia is a horror”. That would scan properly.

    HS:”When he surfaced this time he came up with his Mein Kampf. That basically sums up a very disturbed and sadistic individual with a desire to settle old scores.”

    Your credibility goes out the window when you say this sort of thing. As we can all see, you are no different from the man you attempt to smear. Why don’t you put forward a sensible case for why he is wrong rather than trying this sort of gutter smear?

    HS:”In order to assess Islam and the Muslim world, areas that are unfamiliar to him, Trifkovic uses the writings of discredited journalists and ex-Muslims — whose motivation was nothing honorable either. Such arguments hardly carry any conviction.”

    “Discredited” by who except you? You mean journalists you do not agree with. Again you do not deal with the argument but attack the man. This is utterly foolish, unconvincing and frankly childish. Suppose everything you said was true, *his* argument would remain unrefuted whether he was a mass murdering child molestor or not. To defeat an argument you must confront the argument, not simple smear the man. Actually such arguments, especially from ex-Muslims, are highly convincing.

    HS:”She does not mention a single thing she loves about the people she wrote about. Arabs have a quality to be open, welcoming, to think well of others, to be hospitable and courteous to their guests.”

    Well they like to think so, but who is stereotyping an entire culture and people here? Where is the evidence that Arabs actually live up to their ideals? Arabs also have many other qualities as well. Why do you only select those you approve of?

    HS:”She seldom has a good word for their hospitality. She neither had the nobility to return the courtesy shown to her nor the decency to respect truth and to be as impartial as possible in her evaluation of Muslims.”

    Just as you, and the other Muslims here, have little good to say about the West and its enormous generousity to the world and the West’s Muslims. She has a primary obligation to tell the truth even if it goes against nobility. Good for her. What evidence do you have that she did not respect the truth and was not impartial? Again you seem to play the girl, not the ball and judge all truth by whether you like it or not.

    HS:”The Qur’an, which is revered by more than a billion Muslims, deserves greater respect than he is willing to concede.”

    Why do you think it deserves such respect?

    HS:”For example, in his discussion around whether Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, he demonstrates his total lack of comprehension and narrow mindedness. He has no problems subscribing to Trinity, a notion which for the past two millennia the Church itself had difficulty in explaining logically not only because of its confusing nature, but has problems with the simple, logical and uncompromising monotheism in Islam, a doctrine that is equally shared among the Jews (see Deut. 6:4).6 He does not disclose the fact that Islam is not alone in its rejection of Trinity. Mahatma Gandhi, when asked about Trinity, said, “Jesus was the son of God only in the sense that we are all children of God. The belief that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is to me contrary to reason.”7″

    For example? Why does that follow? Of course the Church has problems with the Trinity – they agree entirely with Gandhi – it is contrary to all reason. But that does not mean that it should be, much less is, rejected. Islam also has problems with understanding God. So what? Nor do you explain what his problem with the Muslim God is. Clearly it is not the Christian God although it may be the Jewish God. So what?

    HS:”He seems to be unaware of what credible historians and great minds of the past two centuries said about Islam and its Prophet. H. G. Wells”

    And what qualifies H. G. Wells to talk about Islam except that he agrees with you?

    HS:”Mahatma Gandhi said:”

    And what qualifies Gandhi to talk about Islam except that he agrees with you?

    HS:”Sir George Bernard Shaw wrote:”

    And what qualifies Shaw to talk about Islam except that he agrees with you?

    And that quote is likely faked by the way.

    HS:”James Michener wrote,”

    And what qualifies Michener to talk about Islam except that he agrees with you?

    HS:”Bertrand Russell stated:”

    And what qualifies Russell to talk about Islam except that he agrees with you?

    You need to spend more time reading what people say and thinking about why they do so. Not wasting all our time by personal attacks and insults. None of us have a clue about anything ST said because you have not bothered to attempt to begin to refute a single arugment he made. Calling someone a son of a b!tch does not make him wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *