I continue to be baffled, however, why Spencer feels it necessary to say, in effect, things like:

...the interpretations of the fanatics do not reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition.

-- when in the very next breath, he goes on to say, in effect, that:

the rulings by jurists from all the recognized Sunni and Shi'ite madhahib declare that jihad in fact is to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, and that therefore non-Muslims and Muslims are not to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis anywhere on Earth, and that furthermore no evidence has been found of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that does not teach this;

and

that the various madhahib did in fact elaborate guidelines for offensive jihad.

If all this that Spencer asserts (and has shown from Islamic texts) isn't evidence that the teachings of the fanatics do, in fact, "reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition", I don't know what is.

that Muslims not being allowed to attack non-Muslims based on non-belief alone appears to be the standard, mainstream orthodox Islamic position today. This has been stated clearly in the open ‘Regensburg’ letter to the pope

The 38 Muslim clerics & scholars who wrote the Regensburg letter merely assert this, and go on to amplify this assertion with another assertion even more preposterous:

"The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature."

The 38 Muslim clerics & scholars provide no evidence for their assertions, however.

Evidence that contradicts their assertion, however, may be found in Koran 9:29-31, which frames the mandate to fight and kill Christians and Jews unless they submit to Islam and pay the jiza with "willing submission, until they feel humiliated" -- and frames this mandate wholly in terms of wrong religious belief. The great Muslim exegete Ibn Kathir in his exegesis of these verses (as well as his exegesis of Sura 2) bears this out even more copiously and vividly. And these are only the tip of the iceberg, whose massive evidence may be gleaned from the Hadiths.

markolee, did you forget your solemn promise over 24 hours ago to provide examples of Spencer's "hateful articles"?

"i will post citations on Mr Spencer's hateful articles tomorrow as i can not be bothered to do so at the moment."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026899.php#IDC...

Another Muslim apologist, "markolee", wrote here yesterday:

"i will post citations on Mr Spencer's hateful articles tomorrow as i can not be bothered to do so at the moment."

I would be shocked if he actually made good on that promise. Completely astounded if there were a shred of substance to his claim were he to come through as he promised.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Some of my presentation may seem slow going because I quoted so extensively from Ibn Kathir -- but if the reader really reads all of that carefully, he will see how relevant it is.

I felt that way 5 damn years ago. And it has only gotten worse -- both the escalating atrocities Muslims have committed, and the collective stupidity of our own West.

From what I've heard, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender, one of our conditions was that the Japanese Emperor, who was considered to be divine, go on national Japanese radio and announce that he is no longer a god.

Similarly, I look forward to the day that a new coalition of sane and rational Allies will someday demand from Muslim leadership (oh, let's expand your 100 influential Muslim clergy to the political and religious leaders who currently comprise the O.I.C.) that they announce by radio, TV, Internet, Jumbotron, Twitter, whatever -- that Mohammed is no longer a Prophet of God. We might, however, have to hold such an event at a place other than the Masjid al-Haram, since that area might have become a giant smoking ( and possibly radioactive) hole in the sand at that point.

"Cair just told the ALA that islam doesn't condone murder. "

And Robert Spencer agreed.

Time and time again, we have seen Muslim apologists in these comments fields come in and defend Islam in various cherrypicking ways -- addressing some points while ignoring others, and invariably the points they ignore from us are the more important challenges.

In this comments thread, we now have had one such Muslim apologist, "islamophobia", who has come here in one short period of time making a big splash and trying to make waves, only to ignore the more serious challenges and now has turned tail without addressing my response to his challenge to me.

23 hours ago, I posted a comment that challenged his assertion that according to Islam, Muslims are to treat the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) with "honor", and I cited 9:29 (though I could have cited dozens of other verses as well).

"islamophobia" then within the hour (still 23 hours ago) challenged me by asking me if I knew the "historical context" of that verse and how, by logical extension, that "historical context" is supposed to exculpate and soften the chillingly supremacist belligerence of that verse.

Then five hours later (18 hours ago), I posted a lengthy and detailed 4-part rebuttal.

And guess what? Just like all the other Muslim apologists who have come through these comments fields at Jihad Watch over the years, "islamophobia" has vanished into thin air, like a jinn back into his bottle.

And the Brits are still in doubt about the viability of the BNP? Bloody idiots, the lot of them.