Subjective Fundamental Errors

[This newsletter is the continuation of a debate begun with a rabbi’s criticism of an earlier essay, Fundamental Errors. The set off text is the rabbi’s comments.]

Your response [referring to the newsletter Fundamental Errors] here is filled with errors of fact as is almost everything people like you publish about Islam.

This is an excellent starting point—facts. When it comes to Islam, I use the facts of the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Briefly, the Koran says over 90 times that Mohammed is the perfect life example. Where do we find Mohammed? We find him in the Sira (his biography) and the Hadith (his traditions). Since most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, it is interesting to see the relative sizes of the three texts:

Koran Sira Hadith
14% 26% 60%

Relative Sizes of Islamic Texts

Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed. Islam can be defined as the political/religious doctrine found in the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy it is Islam. To know Islam, know Allah and Mohammed, the only two Muslims you need to know. Said another way, if a claim is made about Islam that cannot be traced back to Mohammed and Allah, then it is not Islam. And Islam cannot be reformed, by its very structure. Reforming Islam means reforming Allah and Mohammed. One does not reform perfection.

The basic error is in trying to attribute to Islam in general what is only true of the kind of political Islamists who are trying to remove modern influences from the Muslim world.

Islam is not defined by Islamists or any other kind of Muslim. The attributes of Islam come from its source texts, influences that are 1400 years old—Mohammed and Allah. It is critical to understand that Muslims do not cause Islam. Islam causes Muslims. Islam is a doctrine that insists that every Muslim submit to a perfect, universal, eternal Koran, the exact words of the only god. A Koran that is perfect down to the smallest detail. Interpretation and context do not allow any escape from this boundary. A Muslim’s only practical way to temper Islam is by denying or ignoring the texts.

There is a confusion about Islam that comes from the Trilogy. There are two Korans and two Mohammeds, hence two Islams. The first Islam is found when Mohammed lived in Mecca and was a religious teacher. The second Islam is found in Medina and is political and mostly about jihad. His two careers are found in the Sira. He preached Islam for 13 years and garnered about 150 Muslims. He went to Medina, where be became a politician and jihadist. In three years he annihilated the Jews. In the last 9 years of his life he averaged a jihadic event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks. When he died every Arab was a Muslim. Politics is what made Mohammed successful. It is the politics that I care about. I don’t give a rip about the religion of Islam.

So here we have two very different Mohammeds. Both are pure Sunna and hence pure Islam. The logical problem this dualism causes is when people meet a nice Muslim, they think that Islam is nice and hence, jihad is not Islam. But both the religious Muslims and the jihadists are all good Muslims. They just follow two different Islams and can go back and forth as needed.

You plainly depend on most of your readings never having read the Koran or studied Islamic history, culture, philosophy, etc. Most of the Koran is about how to live a good life.

I have a library of about 250 books on Koran, Mohammed, Islamic history and culture and have studied Islam since 1970. For about 10 years after 9/11 I read the Koran every day, many days for hours. I publish 3 different Korans.

Actually, most of the Koran is not about how to lead a good life, or a least not a life that is not harmful to others. Here are three examples:

  1. About 24% of the Koran written in Medina is about jihad
  2. About 17% of the Medinan Koran is devoted to Jew hatred.
  3. 71% of all mentions of women in the Koran subjugate women.

Your assertion that Islam has no version of the Golden Rule is patently false. Here are two examples from the Hadith.
“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”[63] Those are two of several.

[I cannot locate the second reference about mankind, the first is from Bukhari, the primary hadith collector.] The word brother is used in two ways in Bukhari. The first meaning is an actual blood brother, sharing the same mother or father. The second meaning is another Muslim. There are a total of 209 hadiths that refer to the word “brother” and of these, 113 hadiths are about spiritual brotherhood. In every case a brother is a brother to another Muslim, not a Kafir.

Bukhari 3, 43, 622 Allah’s Apostle said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection . “

Hadiths that say a Muslim is to love his brother do not apply to Kafirs. The Kafir is outside the Islamic pseudo-Golden Rule.

Let us go one step further with the Golden Rule. Mohammed is the perfect Muslim. Let us examine his status a good neighbor. When he was in Mecca, he argued with every Meccan. The reason that the Meccans drove him out of town was he was so divisive. When he moved to Medina, as soon as he consolidated his political power, he started jihad against the Meccans and after that all pagans. He destroyed the half of Medina that was Jewish. After his jihad against the pagans was successful, he turned north to attack the Christians in Syria. Mohammed attacked every single neighbor he had. Mohammed was a neighbor who caused every neighbor to suffer. So much for the Golden Rule.

This Golden Rule is so important that we need to drive the final nail in the casket. There are 13 verses in the Koran that refer to friendship. Each of them declares that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir. Here is one verse:

Koran 5:51 Oh, believers, do not take the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you take them for his friends, he surely is one of them. Allah will not guide the evildoers.

There is no Golden Rule in Islam.

In the usual passive aggressive manner you accuse me of “Christo-phobia.” In fact I have been actively involved with interfaith activities since I was a teenager. In my community I am very welcome as a teacher in local churches.

I am quite familiar with the dark side of Islamic history and also the dark side of Christian history, neither of which is over. The army of the Lord in east and central Africa. There are hundreds of Christian hate groups in our country. None of these is normative Christianity just as Al-Qaeda is not normative Islam.

I cannot comment on hundreds of Christian hate groups. Please name a few. Why is it that you cannot discuss Islam without bringing in Christianity? I hold that Islam is sui generis, a thing unto itself, without parallel. You seem to hold that Islam cannot be discussed without a comparison to Christianity. Why?

But I can deal with al Qaeda as being normative. In Islam normative can have only one meaning—adherence to Islamic doctrine as found in Koran, Sira and Hadith. To imitate Mohammed is Islamic normal and al Qaeda follows the example of Mohammed, the jihadist. Do you ever read their writings? They are constantly quoting the Medinan Koran and Sunna. Of course, the nice Muslim you meet at work is also normative Islam and quotes Meccan Koran. Dualism again. The nice Muslim and the jihadist are both true Muslims.

The concept of jihad is misused alike by today’s Jihadists and by Islamophobes. The term primarily refers to the personal struggle of the individual to overcome temptation and like a good life. The lesser jihad refers to holy wars in defense of Islam. Jihadis comfort themselves for their crimes by thinking that fighting against the West and modernity in general even as they violate the explicit rules of jihad against attacking noncombatants.

Jihad is NOT primarily about personal struggle. Bukhari contains 645,745 words and he devotes 132,315 words to jihad. Of these words devoted to jihad, 2347 words can be interpreted as spiritual jihad. Only1.7% of all jihad hadiths (2347 / 132,315 = 0.017, 1.7%) are devoted to spiritual jihad. According to Bukhari, 98.3% of all jihad hadiths are about killing Kafirs and 1.7% of them are about spiritual struggle. The jihadists and the “Islamophobes” (and I am an Islamo-critic) have it correct and you, sir, are wrong. So says Bukhari.

If you would read the Sira (Mohammed’s canonical biography) you will notice that 68% of the text is devoted to jihad and each and every event of jihad is about war against the Kafir. There is no jihad as spiritual struggle in the Sira.

And now let’s deal with “not harming non-combatants”. You are half right, but since Islamic doctrine is always dualistic, that means there are hadith which say the opposite. Here are two examples that determine the rules of jihad. They contradict each other, so the resolution is that either can be used as needed. (The M in the index number means abu Muslim, a canonical hadith collector)

M019,4319 in one of Mohammed’s battles, it was discovered that a woman had been killed by the Muslims; however, he did not approve of killing women and children.

M019,4321 Mohammed said, “they are from them,” when told of the killing of women and children by Muslims during a raid.

I am guessing that you are a fundamentalist Christian and an adherent of right-wing politics, because that is where most of this kind of literature comes from these days.

Actually, your guess is wrong. I am an apostate of liberal/progressive politics. I reject both political parties and consider them to be the Party of Evil and the Party of Stupid. I am probably more libertarian than anything else. I was raised a Christian, but practiced Buddhism up until 9/11. I claim no religion since that date.

I have been active in standing up to Islamic hatreds for decades including as an NGO delegate at UN meetings. I have done it on campus, in communal settings, and elsewhere.

I became active in interfaith work because I grew up in a community with a lot of Holocaust survivors. My rabbi, who was a survivor who had grown up in Nazi Germany, believed that it was poor relations among different faith groups that allowed the Nazis to sell the German people on demonizing Jews.

I know where teaching hate leads to and that is Auschwitz. Your response to me denies you are a hate group publishing hate literature. I have dealt with such things all of my life and I know it when I see it and I see it in you.

Since you claim to have the power to detect hate, give me your hate evaluation about this event taken from the Sira:

Ishaq554 The Apostle of Allah said, “Kill any Jew who falls into your power.” Hearing this Muhayyisa fell upon a Jewish merchant who was a business associate and killed him. Muhayyisa’s brother was not a Muslim and asked him how he could kill a man who had been his friend and partner in many business deals. The Muslim said that if Mohammed had asked him to kill his brother he would have done it immediately. His brother said, “You mean that if Mohammed said to cut off my head you would do it?” “Yes,” was the reply. The older brother then said, “By Allah, any religion which brings you to this is marvelous.” And he decided then and there to become a Muslim.

You see, I hate this kind of Jew hatred material. I also hate the Koranic subjugation of women. I hate jihad. I hate Islamic dualistic ethics. I hate the Islamic war against Christians. I hate the Islamic slave doctrine. I hate the persecution of pagans. I hate child brides. I hate the Sharia which says that I am a third class citizen. Where do you stand on these issues?

“I know it [hate] when I see it” Your standards of “hate” are subjective. No where do you advance a single objective rule to be used to determine whether something is hate or not. If you don’t like it, it is hate, but it is your personal subjective judgment. And on this issue we see the great divide between us. My statements are based on facts that can be verified by any third party. That is the basis of objectivity.

I am saddened and frightened by the promotion of hatred you represent. I know all too well how similar it is to accusations against Jews in the last century. You are no better than Fr. Coughlin and seem to me to be his spiritual brother.

The “hatred that I represent” is fact-based reasoning. Go back over what is here—extensive use of Islamic source doctrine. Why is that hate? Why is your righteous fantasy so virtuous and why is my fact-based reasoning called hatred? What is your moral basis?

I respect you and assume that our differences are about reason and logic. Even though I have studied Islam for over 40 years, you assert that I am ignorant and I am morally impaired. Facts are never hatred. Since your arguments fade in the light of Islamic doctrine, you turn to name calling. You shoot the messenger.

I look forward to your response.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Copyright © 2013 CBSX, LLC,
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.

21 Responses

  1. Dvorah Chanah


  2. Martin

    Mr. Bentley…. you did not understand what Mr. Warner replied to you. You are letting your view of the Muslims you know affect your idea of what islam is.

    Islam is simple. The Koran is the word of god, letter by letter. Nothing can abrogate a verse of the Koran, except another verse, that comes later. The Koran tells certain things to muslims about how to live their lives, but it also says that muslims must follow the example of Mohammed. Therefore a muslim who follows only the Koran is wrong, he must also follow the sunna of Mohammed.

    That’s what islam is. Nothing more or less than that. It doesn’t matter what anyone says about it. A muslim must follow the directions of the Koran and the sunna of Mohammed. A muslim who doesn’t, is not a muslim anymore.

    For example, let’s say that tomorrow morning, every single muslim on the planet agrees that 50-year-old men having sex with 9-year-old girls is evil, they would ALL be wrong, because Mohammed did it and therefore it is part of islam.

    Islam is not what muslims say it is. Islam is what the Koran and the sunna of Mohammed say it is.

  3. Rhonda

    Has anyone ever heard the saying, “actions speak louder than words?” Their actions have shown over 1400 years that their plan is to take over the world and institute Sharia in every country in the world.
    They say this themselves. This is not hate to state facts. They steal, kill and destroy everywhere they go. Their own actions speak for them. The whole 1400 years they have done this… so to say they are a religion of peace is a lie; to say they do not have a jihad agenda is a lie; to say that jihadists are a small minority is a lie. Their very Law dictates jihad. Whether they are religious Muslims or not, they will die a Muslim before they will die a kafir. They have an agenda – to institute Sharia Law. It does not matter whether they are in Africa, Europe, or the United States, they are still the same Muslims that they were before they went to these places. It doesn’t even matter if they were born in the U.S., a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim… their Moruna Dualism doesn’t change that.


    Thanks for your 2 great videos , great
    presentations. I just saw them.

    I am of student of the Classics,
    Byzantium , and have spent a lot
    of time on many related subjects.

    I have also studied Islam, some books
    and researched works online.

    We are dealing with a murderous, civilization destroying, political manifesto,
    that cloaks itself in ” religion ” .

    Political Correctness is our poison.

    Thanks for your great scholarly work.

  5. cjk

    @Phillip Bentley:
    Pretty simple: The religion is what it’s texts say it is, and Mohammedanism is best practiced by following the example of Mohammed.
    Why can’t you just look it up?
    Why do you deny that reality?
    Arguing with the likes of you is senseless if you are going to refuse to read and see.
    I’d really like to know exactly what or how you profit from all this.
    There is a disingenuous aspect to your feinted ignorance.
    To those who would criticize my criticism as too harsh; the guy is doing his all to cover for the most dangerous and evil force I can see in the world today.
    The equivalence of Charles Lindbergh in 1939 AT BEST.

  6. gfmucci


    For such an educated man, you appear to be amazingly naive. Based on your “experience” with Muslims in the US compared with what you say about them, the only explanation for the disparity from the truth is they sense a gullible individual when they see one.

    Please wake up and quit spreading your deception.

  7. OrdinaryGuy

    Rabbi P. Bentley


    Once again I find myself agreeing with some of the implications of your letter – but remain completely unconvinced by your presented facts.

    I agree that there are aspects of this website that need to be addressed. I myself have found the inclusion of the descriptor “war” in various blog and article contexts – while synonymous to “jihad” – really has no place here. (Perhaps Dr. Warner will consider some corrections?)

    But at the same time your labeling of the site as “hate” is clearly wrong. This site is one of education and explanation. The western mind has no concept of the politics, faith and religion of Islam, indeed most westerners struggle to understand their own faiths!

    In my last note to you I challenged you on your examples of the “Islamic Golden Rule” – I still await your reply.

    I am not at all convinced that there is any equivalence between the “Golden Rule” and your sample verses – your examples are just way too open to convenient misinterpretation and/or complete misapplication. For example: what wondrous good future did those who signed the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie wish for this writer? Were the authors of this Sharia legal document terrorists?

    With respect to only 1 in 10,000 within the faith of Islam being aware of what the actual sacred texts say – I agree with you completely – in fact your number is probably too low. However what you neglect is the fact that one in 10,000 does know the literal meanings of these texts. This person – if they wish – can conveniently use these texts as justifications for perverse acts of violence. In all cases these are not acts of religious faith – these are acts of political ideology. This what this site has taught me.

    There are millions and millions of good people in the world and millions of them are Muslim. The danger in the texts of Islam is not religious – it is not faith – it is political. Like many in the western world I have struggled for the last 15 years to comprehend the absolutely senseless violence committed in the name of Islam all around the world and against many different peoples virtually all of whom are innocents. Most of this violence is directed against other Muslims but highly significantly it is also directed against those who are seen to be “outside of the faith” or Khafir and of course it is also directed against those who stand in the way of someone’s path to power, somewhere in the world.

    What Dr. Warner has done for me is allowed me to see how the texts of this faith, combined with its decentralized organizational structure, combined with its absolutist legalism (Sharia) allow for a near perfect tool for mayhem – when placed in the hands of those who wish to use it. None of these texts is invalidated or merely of historical interest – they are taught as active – eternal – real – and most importantly “the perfect word of god never to be changed”. In other words a never ending tool to attain and keep power – to be used as needed when needed.

    (According to Sharia – which is in effect in many places in the world now – the latest is Brunei) To try to leave or repudiate this faith is punishable by death, to try to change any of the texts of this faith is punishable by death and all adherents are taught to wish this peace and beauty for everyone outside of this faith.

    Of course the completely overwhelming majority of adherents are unaware of what the texts actually say – (like 15th century Christians back then, they now today – rely on others to translate and explain their own beliefs to them) and even if they did understand — why wouldn’t they – or anyone else for that matter – ignore what is so completely and fundamentally morally wrong.

    Hence all the good people you speak of. All the good people you know and I agree they are there.

    We in the west especially – but indeed everyone on the planet in this age of internet “instant information” – needs to understand the mind of the terrorist, and the logic that creates them – if we ever hope to eliminate the destruction and hatred created through their actions.

    Yes the world is complex and many things are not as they seem – but in this case I am finally able to see how a man is convinced to strap a bomb onto his body and walk into a crowded bazaar full of women and children. It is not religion, it is not faith, it is a political act engendered by the coercive and political imperatives laid out in 1400 year old texts.

    The one in 10,000 people who understand this — needs to be absolutely and completely understood – by the 9,999 who want it to stop. This site can help educate everyone and give them the courage to speak out. This site is for those who would defend the young woman who just wanted to take off her headscarf and was beaten by her family as a result – this site is for the young woman who was shot in the head because she believed that young girls deserved a right to education just as young boys do too.

    I await your reply.

  8. Confederate Cash

    What is both fascinating and deeply disturbing is how fervently many in the West and in the European union defend islam as a peaceful and tolerant religion.
    To such a point as to even make it seem like they have converted to islam themselves.
    Where does this “brainwashing” come from?
    The Prime Minister of England, David Cameron is a prime example, as is this rabbi.

  9. wtd

    Bentley – It’s the “Pseudo-scholarly disguise”/”pretend what IS there – isn’t” mentality of rabbis ( like you) which drive congregants who insist on “NEVER AGAIN” to abandon the congregation.

    I may not know you personally, but your rose tinted view of Islam is easily debunked by Islamic texts AND overwhelming evidence of Muslim behavior through the centuries.
    To suggest that because your interactions with individual Muslims have been quite positive means that all negative interactions by others are invalid is pathetic and disturbing. That is the mentality which succored generations into Nazi ovens. Yet the reactions to your molly coddling Islam brought a degree of heat which you find unbearable. You’ve made your position clear that facts presented by a very patient and thorough response by Dr. Warner is far too ‘inconvenient’ to address.

  10. Philip Bentley

    Your readers condemn me and claim I am ignorant without actually knowing who I am. I have studied world religions and engaged in interfaith work all of my life. n fact I have read studied and taught the basic Muslim sources. I have also stood up against bigotry, including Muslim bigotry all of my life.

    There are far too many errors of fact, context, and interpretation in your statements, Mr. Warner, to spend my time trying to respond to them all. Here are a couple.

    There is no central authority for Islam and certainly not Al-Azhar University in Cairo. That institution’s ulema speaks only for Egyptian Muslims. That does not mean there aren’t Muslims who claim to speak for all of Islam, but they are making false claims. In Judaism we likewise have no central authority but individuals and individual communities will sometimes follow the teachings of a particular rabbi or rabbinic court. The system in Islam is similar.

    No faith is entirely defined by its scripture despite the fact that what makes scripture scripture (as opposed to any other kind of literature) is that it represents God-given truth. All scripture of all religions is subject to interpretation and exegesis. That includes Judaism and Christianity as well as Islam as well as Buddhism, etc. Using one interpretation of scripture to define a faith with over a billion adherents is simply misleading and wrong.

    There are a lot of generalizations here about Muslim attitudes towards non-Muslims. They are true in some cases but in reality Muslims have lived alongside of people of many other faiths over the centuries in many parts of the world. I would add that one of the oldest versions of anti-Semitism claims that Jews are hostile to the entire non-Jewish world.

    There is a lot about what I see on your site and others like it that mirror exactly the kind of lies we suffered from over the centuries at the hands of supposed Christians. I think that any version of any faith that teaches hatred of other faiths is a perversion of that faith. All of our faiths are prone to this kind of error and must guard against it.

    I am asked to react to a passage from Islamic tradition which is clearly hostile to Jews. I know of such passages from every faith tradition, including mine. I object to all such, but I mainly concern myself with the time we are living in and the expressions of hate I find in it. If you ask me about Muslim anti-Semitism I will answer that I have responded directly to those Muslims who have said offensive things about non-Muslims. Probably not one Muslim in ten thousand is familiar with the texts you quote aside from the Koran itself. Unless you are clergy, how much of the Church Fathers or the expounders of the Reformation have you studied or read?

    The comment by “Paul” claiming that Jews had something to do with Nazis demonizing Jews isn’t just wrong, it’s deeply offensive. His comment on this site that Judaism is “suspiciously” similar to Islam, because it is made on this site, clearly indicates that he is an anti-Semite himself. Mr. Warner, you ought to consider the negative influence you have in promoting fear and hatred of a world faith. You are known by the company you keep.

    I want to add that my experience with Muslims in this country are mostly quite positive. They are figuring out how to adapt their faith to our culture and society. American Jews went through this process and continue to do so. There are a number of web sites where this process can be seen. We need to have more confidence on the positive influence our people has on newcomers.

    I am reading “propaganda and disinformation about Islam” on this site and n sites like it. I have dealt with hate literature all of my life and know it when I see it. A pseudo-scholarly disguise is often involved as I believe it is here.

  11. Democracyistheanswer

    Responding to ‘Paul’: I think Rabbi Bentley has not read Islam’s source texts (Koran, ahadith and Sira), nor has he read the canonical commentaries of the Islamic ‘consensus’. He is no dout relying on third-hand information obtained from modern books about Islam written by slick apologists who disinform Kafirs about Islam and disguise the more troubling aspects (pedophilia, misogyny, brutal punishments and the whole issue of second, third and fourth class status for non-Moslems).

    The rabbi is therefore reading what must be called propaganda and disinformation about Islam rather than doing the hard work of primary research himself…for which there is no substitute. He merely assumes that Islam is benign and seeks evidence to confirm his optimistic prejudice.

  12. Paul

    Looks like the rabbi lost. By a mile. Now we should investigate the possibility that the rabbi’s accusation of hatred is the rabbi’s unintended projection alert concerning his own hatred toward Bill Warner.

    Also, if ‘Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed’, then how are we not to call Islam a cult of personality?

    The Koran provides clues that the leadership of Islam finds it irksome for followers to commingle with outsiders. And why wouldn’t there be such fear? Outsiders might plant the dread seed of doubt that, once germinated and established, undermines mental or emotional dependency upon the cult’s leadership. Thus do we find the Koran encouraging hatred and enmity.

    Probably the rabbi sees the irony only too well, but remember that he has his own theocratic agenda, too, in mind. He may have decided that no one should sharpen his or her wits criticizing a religion, Islam, that is suspiciously similar to Judaism. And what if the rabbi is a leftist? If so, he would want to avoid dividing the political coalition needed to advance socialism. This means providing shelter for Muslims, and it doesn’t contradict the leftwing agenda that Islam’s 4th pillar, zakat, is welfare statist.

    Just one more point: Notice again the remark about the belief of the rabbi’s rabbi ‘that it was poor relations among different faith groups that allowed the Nazis to sell the German people on demonizing Jews.’ Ok, so what were those ‘faith groups’, and what share of the population of Germany was under the spell of their respective faiths? As far as I know there were two, Judaism and Christianity, which had the vast majority of all people in ‘faith groups’. It’s no secret that they have been at each others’ throats for thousands of years. Now, since Christianity is personality cult founded by Jews upon Judaism, it stands to reason that the rabbi discovered that Judaism helped ‘the Nazis to sell the German people on demonizing Jews’.

  13. Ken

    Worth repeating this:

    Al-Nawawi wrote the ‘Forty Hadiths’ in which Islam’s pseudo-Golden Rule appears. The interpretation of Rabbi Bentley is not the interpretation of Sheikh Al-Nawawi who wrote that the Muslim wants for Kafirs what the Muslim wants for himself, i.e. to believe in Islam.

    Al-Nawawi’s pseudo-Golden Rule is a demand that Kafirs become Muslims.

  14. Ken

    Rabbi Bentley is no doubt unaware that Islam is not defined by individual Muslims for themselves, but by the Fatwa Department of Al Azhar University in Cairo.

    The Islamic canon was fully defined in 1111 AD. Since then, Islamic ‘scholars’ have no more work to do but to look up what previous experts have defined.

    There is no ‘new truth’ for Muslims to discover.

    The rabbi makes mistakes common to all those who try to understand Islam without learning the history of Islamic jurisprudence.

    Rabbi Bentley mistakenly assumes that there is a mechanism for reform within Islam. Quite the opposite.

  15. Felsen Stark

    Islamic apologist seem to never comment about the most massive holocaust in history, the Kafir Holocaust.

  16. Calatrava

    Maybe the Rabbi should visit the huge Jewish community in the North African countries … oh, they have all being expelled …

  17. Bengt, Sweden

    Thank you, Bill, for these enlightening, clearcut and outstanding articles.

  18. Fred Dawes

    you are right

  19. d

    You muslims are a bunch of murdering cowards.

  20. David

    Mr Warner,
    Thank you for your excellent moral clarity and outstanding scholarship

  21. Joe Whitehead

    Perhaps the UN embracing rabbi should spend a little more time studying the Hitler – Hussieni alliance, or maybe a comparison of the mass trench Jewish grave sites of Medina and Aucshwitz since he likes to refer to the Holocaust to ignorantly justify his Neturei Karta style arguments.

Leave a Reply

We require registration to prevent excessive automated spam commenting.