||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Where CAIR's opinion is false
I'll start with the Hanbali document's preamble:
I'm not seeing much here, from this admittedly cursory look, with which an honest Muslim could agree. It looks like wishful thinking from over here.
Then there's this happy horsesh!t:
And while Islam spread politically from Central Asia (Khurasan) to North Africa due to Islamic conquests, the majority of the inhabitants of these lands remained Christian for hundreds of years until some of them gradually accepted Islam through gentle invitation, and not through severity and coercion. Indeed large countries and entire provinces became Muslim without conquest but through invitation (da’wah), such as: Indonesia; Malaysia; West and East Africa, and others. Hence, severity is neither a measure of piety nor a choice for the spread of Islam.
First off, the conquests themselves weren't peaceful. Second off, yo, the tyranny of al-Hajjaj and others who made it impossible to survive as a Christian.
And millions of happy Arabs of zanji origin were unavailable for comment, their ancestors being dead from kidnap and overwork before those could breed. By contrast, by the way, with certain other customers of the Trade. Pro-tip? If the Muslims're making pro-South AmRen-linkers like myself look good in comparison, then they're doing it wrong.
UPDATE 9:20 PM: I have actually read Spencer's own "fisking", now. Let's go through it.
He'd caught #8 too. Also, more cursorily, he'd caught #10: to which he brings the contradictions inherent in #5 on expediency; and #11. He also explicitly noted #12 - that Islam prohibits slavery by way of phasing it out - as crap. #13 is also crap and he applies its nullity back to #10. For #20, he brings a sahih hadith, to which I'd brought modern Sunnite practice (which, I have to assume, was based on that hadith).
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved