Debate on Mohammed: Zayed vs. Spencer

[Mike Renzulli]

I came across this at JihadWatch. It is a debate between authors Robert Spencer and Moustafa Zayed. Zayed attempts to defend Mohammed while Spencer takes the opposite view. A very lively and excellent debate. I need not tell you the outcome as it is apparent as to whom will have the upper hand since Spencer tells the truth.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/zayed-spencer-debate-did-muhammad-teach-warfare-against-and-subjugation-of-unbelievers.html

Edited January 30, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I listened to the opening statements of both and one half of Spencer's rebuttal. I decided at that point that the rest would not be different, although I recognize there is a slim chance I might be wrong. But I decided to take the odds and not waste any more time with this stuff.

My opinion of Spencer remains unchanged.

He knows how much his oversimplifications irritate Muslims.

To be fair, Moustafa Zayed was just as bad. This one knows how much his hairsplitting irritates non-Muslims.

Both threw in a bunch of stuff from outside the issue.

We might as well be watching a debate between a Christian and an atheist over whether or not Christ existed to find out why we wage war so much in the West.

I'm not impressed, to say it lightly.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Once again you don't actually address the issue or raise any points made in the debate and dispute those points. You merely shoot the messenger.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

Would you address the arguments of the KKK that blacks bear the curse of Ham, yada yada yada? They did discuss the Holy Bible back then after all, even citing Biblical verses.

In my world, calling that crap the crap it is is not "shooting the messenger" and it's not worth debating.

Spencer oversimplifies in the same manner. And he baits Muslims just to watch them get angry, not to convince them.

I don't like him.

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

I watched the entire "debate."

Spencer's opening delivery was awful, but once his pace slowed down, his points were more effective from my pure debate judge hat that I was wearing.

Moustafa Zayed would have failed my course purely on having the worst delivery that I have seen in decades from a "professional debater." Secondly, he did not refute several points that Spencer advanced.

Zayed won a few points on non-Muslim dinar issue, but was abysmal on refuting the nine year old claim.

Our own Libertarian Muslim member would have handled Spencer quite well.

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

Would you address the arguments of the KKK that blacks bear the curse of Ham, yada yada yada? They did discuss the Holy Bible back then after all, even citing Biblical verses.

In my world, calling that crap the crap it is is not "shooting the messenger" and it's not worth debating.

Spencer oversimplifies in the same manner. And he baits Muslims just to watch them get angry, not to convince them.

I don't like him.

Michael

I just finished watching the entire debate. Mr Spencer made excellent points, and Mr Zayed clearly caim out lacking. There wasn't a single thing that Mr Spencer presented in the debate that could even remotely be compared to KKK bigotry. He produced and addressed the Islamic teachings that jihadists such as OBL act upon. The Objectivist definition of justice is, the virtue of judging a man objectively and then treating him according to that which he deserves. You are not judging Mr Spencer objectively. You are simply attacking his character and doing him an injustice. You don't convince me that his points are wrong or that they are crap in doing so, you merely show me that you are about as bigoted as you claim me to be. Mr Spencer is exposing things that need to be known about Islam, because they explain much of the behaviour of jihadists today. All you're doing is trying to cover it up. I don't see how that helps anyone.

[Richard Wiig]

Folks:

I watched the entire "debate."

Spencer's opening delivery was awful, but once his pace slowed down, his points were more effective from my pure debate judge hat that I was wearing.

Moustafa Zayed would have failed my course purely on having the worst delivery that I have seen in decades from a "professional debater." Secondly, he did not refute several points that Spencer advanced.

Adam

Moustafa Zayed was rattled.

P.S. Libertarian Muslim is an oxymoron.

[Selene]

Folks:

I watched the entire "debate."

Spencer's opening delivery was awful, but once his pace slowed down, his points were more effective from my pure debate judge hat that I was wearing.

Moustafa Zayed would have failed my course purely on having the worst delivery that I have seen in decades from a "professional debater." Secondly, he did not refute several points that Spencer advanced.

Adam

Moustafa Zayed was rattled.

P.S. Libertarian Muslim is an oxymoron.

Richard:

Post Post Script: Since you are allegedly not pre-judging people, have you read the posts of our own Libertarian Muslim?

Syria's Mufti: Islam commands us to protect Judaism

Living with the 'Taliban'

Iran in deal to end nuclear dispute

The Muslims are Taking Over The World

I have found him to be an exceptionally competent with his argumentation. I do not always agree with him, but I respect him and I have learned from his expositions.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I respect and trust the objectivity of your opinion and feedback a lot more than I do prejudiced people.

But I still don't want to waste my time with Spencer. I've seen too much of him in other places, including his own site.

There are far better and far more objective critics of Islam out there, and far wiser men. I prefer to look at their stuff instead of another installment from a thinker whose ideas and underhanded manipulative rhetoric I have already looked at and rejected.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

How can you square Libertarianism with the death penalty for apostasy? You can't. The two are incompatible.

[Selene]

Adam,

I respect and trust the objectivity of your opinion and feedback a lot more than I do prejudiced people.

But I still don't want to waste my time with Spencer. I've seen too much of him in other places, including his own site.

There are far better and far more objective critics of Islam out there, and far wiser men. I prefer to look at their stuff instead of another installment from a thinker whose ideas and underhanded manipulative rhetoric I have already looked at and rejected.

Michael

Agreed. I had never seen him debate and I have been watching Al Jazeera English Live Stream for the last two (2) days so I needed a break.

I, as you are, am developing an approach to Muslims that is rational and fits my comfort zone.

By the way, when you understand what their agenda is, it is an excellent news station.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Selene

[Selene]

How can you square Libertarianism with the death penalty for apostasy? You can't. The two are incompatible.

Richard:

You mean I have to?

I thought that I asked you if you had read what our own Libertarian Muslim put forth is developing his proposition that libertarianism and Islam are compatible.

Was I not clear as to what I asked you?

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

How can you square Libertarianism with the death penalty for apostasy? You can't. The two are incompatible.

Richard:

You mean I have to?

I thought that I asked you if you had read what our own Libertarian Muslim put forth is developing his proposition that libertarianism and Islam are compatible.

Was I not clear as to what I asked you?

Adam

Given what I know about Islam, I know that it isn't compatible. I don't need to read his arguments to know that. I have looked at the thread on the Dhimmi system though, and I will look at more.

[Selene]

How can you square Libertarianism with the death penalty for apostasy? You can't. The two are incompatible.

Richard:

You mean I have to?

I thought that I asked you if you had read what our own Libertarian Muslim put forth is developing his proposition that libertarianism and Islam are compatible.

Was I not clear as to what I asked you?

Adam

Given what I know about Islam, I know that it isn't compatible. I don't need to read his arguments to know that. I have looked at the thread on the Dhimmi system though, and I will look at more.

Richard:

Fair enough. As I explained, you seem to be passionate and intense about this issue which is fine with me because I am also, but it is definitely not a "pigeonhole" issue.

It is complex, global and how we, as a nation, assuming you are an American, will determine our policy towards Islam is critical to our survival.

Additionally, I have no confidence in the moron who temporarily occupies the White House.

I see an incompetent Jimmy Carter at best in O'biwan and an agenda driven marxist at worst. Neither of which will handle the immediate crisis in the Middle East well.

Adam

[Mike Renzulli]

My reason for posting this was not to convince Michael about Spencer's credibility. Rather it was mainly for educational purposes. I think there is value in reading Robert Spencer because of activities like this since he is so articulate and knowledgeable about Islam that Muslim groups (like CAIR) and gents like Zeyad back out from debates because of the knowledge Spencer has.

Robert Spencer has never said that a reformation (in the Thomas Aquinas sense) can never happen in Islam and I think that's mainly where Libertarian Muslim comes from. However, as Spencer has pointed out, it will be VERY difficult when you have schools of jurisprudence (like the Salafis) articulating Islam from a literalist perspective while calling on their followers to conduct jihad.

As a matter of fact, the Salafis (a.k.a. Wahhabis) are a kind of reformation movement in Islam since they use the life of Muhammad as told in the Sunnah and the actual texts of the Quran to articulate their message. This is why individual secular Muslims and groups are few and far between because schools of thought, like the Salafis, draw their logic directly from Muhammad and the Quran. As a result Muslims can be susceptible to violence.

I have come to understand that the many scholars in the various schools of Islamic thought are in agreement that Muslims must make war on non-Muslims. The difference is that they can't agree on when is the appropriate time and how to go about it.

[Selene]

Mike:

I thought that you posted the debate for information purposes. I had never seen Spencer argue before.

I will reserve judgment on the essence of your last paragraph.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

Salafis (Wahhabis) are a serious problem for the West.

They would not have been if we have not filled their coffers to overflowing with oil money.

Now they have deep pockets to fund fundamentalist schools, Salafi mosques immigration to Western countries, attempts at establishing Sharia on local levels, etc. The term "community organizing" comes to mind. Well funded and well connected "community organizing."

I have been saying cut off their funds for years. Stop doing business with them. (Now it's too late, but sometimes I wonder.)

Barring that, I believe the West needs to erect some obstacles to Salafi migratory and usurpation efforts.

Once again, Islam-bashing is a distraction to this.

I honestly believe Islamists like Western Islam-bashing. While the distraction unfolds among the folks they intend to conquer, they are busy under the radar building their intention.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

I know and this is what sends chills up my spine. I have read up on the Salfis and the fact that they get direct backing from the Saudi monarchy and the sect is responsible for the radicalization of many Muslims. Their doing so leads me to conclude not only are the Saudis not our friends but I would dare to argue the Saudi's continued support of this school of thought constitutes an act of war.

The U.S. should apply pressure to the Saudis to stop funding the Salafis. If they don't I say take them down.

Mike,

Salafis (Wahhabis) are a serious problem for the West.

They would not have been if we have not filled their coffers to overflowing with oil money.

Now they have deep pockets to fund fundamentalist schools, Salafi mosques immigration to Western countries, attempts at establishing Sharia on local levels, etc. The term "community organizing" comes to mind. Well funded and well connected "community organizing."

I have been saying cut off their funds for years. Stop doing business with them. (Now it's too late, but sometimes I wonder.)

Barring that, I believe the West needs to erect some obstacles to Salafi migratory and usurpation efforts.

Once again, Islam-bashing is a distraction to this.

I honestly believe Islamists like Western Islam-bashing. While the distraction unfolds among the folks they intend to conquer, they are busy under the radar building their intention.

Michael

Edited January 31, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know and this is what sends chills up my spine. I have read up on the Salfis and the fact that they get direct backing from the Saudi monarchy and the sect is responsible for the radicalization of many Muslims leads me to conclude not only are the Saudis not our friends but I would dare to argue the Saudi's continued support of this school of thought constitutes an act of war.

The U.S. should apply pressure to the Saudis to stop funding the Salafis. If they don't I say take them down.

Mike,

We are on the same page here. (With the qualification of "stop funding the Salafis" in specific projects the USA. I don't think the USA has business telling anyone something like that for other countries. And we need to stop sending money to them.)

All the Islam bashing and quoting of the Qur'an, etc. etc. etc. blur this danger, blur the mechanisms, and blur the causes.

That's why I am adamant in keeping the eye on the true ball when the "Islam is evil" stuff starts up.

And somehow all this has to fit in with freedom of religion, or we will have no right to the title of freedom-lovers.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

I tend to agree short of not telling other countries what to do. My foreign policy candle is that if a country is mostly secular in its outlook among its elected leaders and populace along with a decent semblance of economic freedom along with insitutions to objectively and adequately protect private property rights and enforce contracts then I don't think the U.S. should interfere.

In terms of places like the middle east I think U.S. involvement is appropriate not only because of the terrorism but also it is a way to protect the individual rights of the populace in said regions. I also agree to stop sending countries foreign aid as well.

As far as Islam-bashing I tend to agree. My vantage point is more criticism rather than slander. I think there is value in listening and watching people like Robert Spencer but he is not the end all be all in terms of learning about Islam.

I think the average Muslim, by and large, does not want to hurt anyone. However because of the internal culture and the specificity of the religious texts that tell Muslims how to live as well as the violence and calls for jihad outlined in the Quran, Sunnah and Sharia texts along with clerics openly calling Muslims to conduct it, I think it can make them prone to violence. Much more so than Christians or Jews.

The books of the Bible were written by a variety of different people and there are numerous contradictory chapters and verses and incomplete books in it where Christian and Jewish scholars have to make sense out of it.

In Islam, you have one man who wrote the Sunnah and Quran in which these 2 books and Sharia spell out not only what Islam is all about but how Muslims have to live with little room for clerics to reinterpret and Muslims to ignore.

Mike,

We are on the same page here. (With the qualification of "stop funding the Salafis" in specific projects the USA. I don't think the USA has business telling anyone something like that for other countries. And we need to stop sending money to them.)

All the Islam bashing and quoting of the Qur'an, etc. etc. etc. blur this danger, blur the mechanisms, and blur the causes.

That's why I am adamant in keeping the eye on the true ball when the "Islam is evil" stuff starts up.

And somehow all this has to fit in with freedom of religion, or we will have no right to the title of freedom-lovers.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think the average Muslim, by and large, does not want to hurt anyone. However because of the internal culture and the specificity of the religious texts that tell Muslims how to live as well as the violence and calls for jihad outlined in the Quran, Sunnah and Sharia texts along with clerics openly calling Muslims to conduct it, I think it can make them prone to violence. Much more so than Christians or Jews.

Mike,

I totally disagree with this--especially since it is not based on anything but speculation based on Spencer-like speculation. I'm tempted to ask if you have any statistics or social data to back this up, but I already know that it is very unlikely.

Now on to your own eyes. If you look at our street gangs, organized crime, drug wars and whatnot, we here in the USA are just as "prone to violence" as any Islamist jihadist. And the average folks are just as peace-loving in all cultures. And there are exceptions like wife-beating and child-beating, random acts of crime and thuggery, etc. That's what my eyes tell me when I look at actual people. Do your eyes tell you something else? And if you talk about backwards villages stoning people, I agree that's a disgrace. but we had lynchings of black folks until recently. And gays still get a nice violent ride in some quarters.

Are our problems due to the Bible?

Of course not. All this is human nature.

That Spencer stuff takes your eye off the real intellectual ball, like the leftover Nazi influence in the Islamist culture. Do you know why it exists? Because after WWII, the people in the Islamic Nazi administrations controlled from Vichy merely lost their jobs instead of being rounded up and jailed. And that was only for a short time. England and the USA soon hired them to work against the spread of commmunism. That's how it survived. They received funding to keep existing. They just stopped calling themselves Nazis.

Also, a real intellectual problem--one we can do something about--got buried in another thread, so I will repeat it here:

btw - One of the most serious intellectual problems I see with Islamists is that the Qur'an is written in the present tense. If you ever mess with hypnosis, you will come across many practitioners who hold that the subconscious responds the strongest to the present tense--to a vast desgre over other tenses. Some hypnotists demonstrate this to prove it.

So if this is true (and I believe it is), if an Islamist mentor has, say, a young person he deems to be potential suicide bomber, he will be able to use parts of the Qur'an to brainwash the victim by making the victim recite certain passages over and over in a trance-like state. Then the mentor "explains" the meaning to him.

I mention this to show you just one of the isolated intellectual problems that needs study and exposure, but gets tragically lost in the "Islam is evil" shouting. I have no doubt sincere moderate Muslims of goodwill would feel repugnance at the Qur'ran being used that way if it were brought to their attention in an objective, but friendly fashion.

That makes certain Muslims "more prone to violence."

Not some book by itself that has existed for centuries.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Okay I think I better understand your point. My point wasn't necessarily Spencerian but rather drawing from the logic of Sam Harris in what he said in his book The End of Faith about the religious moderation being a myth as well as his, rightly, laying blame on religion's violent nature being the reason for religious violence. In this case on the part of Muslims.

I was aware of the alliance between Nazis and some Muslims during WWII as having recently learned about the Grand Mufti of Palestine paying visits to Hitler and leaders of Nazi Germany. I was not aware of how deep the influences of Nazi culture have been in some aspects of Islam or Muslim countries.

I did not know about the CIA recruiting ex-Islamic Nazis from Vichy to help stop the spread of communism. That is surprising and it was a serious foreign policy mistake.

However, in terms of your quote regarding how Islamists use the Quran to help inspire or recruit Muslims to jihad are you saying that (on the whole) Muslims are helpless and unable to prevent others from manipulating them?

My question is not meant to be facetious but I am trying to understand the full context of your point.

Mike,

I totally disagree with this--especially since it is not based on anything but speculation based on Spencer-like speculation. I'm tempted to ask if you have any statistics or social data to back this up, but I already know that it is very unlikely.

Now on to your own eyes. If you look at our street gangs, organized crime, drug wars and whatnot, we here in the USA are just as "prone to violence" as any Islamist jihadist. And the average folks are just as peace-loving in all cultures. And there are exceptions like wife-beating and child-beating, random acts of crime and thuggery, etc. That's what my eyes tell me when I look at actual people. Do your eyes tell you something else? And if you talk about backwards villages stoning people, I agree that's a disgrace. But we had lynchings of black folks until recently. And gays still get a nice violent ride in some quarters.

Are our problems due to the Bible?

Of course not. All this is human nature.

That Spencer stuff takes your eye off the real intellectual ball, like the leftover Nazi influence in the Islamist culture. Do you know why it exists? Because after WWII, the people in the Islamic Nazi administrations controlled from Vichy merely lost their jobs instead of being rounded up and jailed. And that was only for a short time. England and the USA soon hired them to work against the spread of commmunism. That's how it survived. They received funding to keep existing. They just stopped calling themselves Nazis.

Also, a real intellectual problem--one we can do something about--got buried in another thread, so I will repeat it here:

btw - One of the most serious intellectual problems I see with Islamists is that the Qur'an is written in the present tense. If you ever mess with hypnosis, you will come across many practitioners who hold that the subconscious responds the strongest to the present tense--to a vast degree over other tenses. Some hypnotists demonstrate this to prove it.

So if this is true (and I believe it is), if an Islamist mentor has, say, a young person he deems to be potential suicide bomber, he will be able to use parts of the Qur'an to brainwash the victim by making the victim recite certain passages over and over in a trance-like state. Then the mentor "explains" the meaning to him.

I mention this to show you just one of the isolated intellectual problems that needs study and exposure, but gets tragically lost in the "Islam is evil" shouting. I have no doubt sincere moderate Muslims of goodwill would feel repugnance at the Qur'ran being used that way if it were brought to their attention in an objective, but friendly fashion.

That makes certain Muslims "more prone to violence."

Not some book by itself that has existed for centuries.

Michael

Edited January 31, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

However, in terms of your quote regarding how Islamists use the Quran to help inspire or recruit Muslims to jihad are you saying that (on the whole) Muslims are helpless and unable to prevent others from manipulating them?

Mike,

No.

I am saying that some very specific, very evil people are using the Qur'an as an effective brainwashing tool and this can be reasonably backed up by science.

Notice that the Islamist mentors are not the ones strapping the bombs on. They know full well what they are doing. I have no doubt they screen potential suicide bombers according to mental susceptibility, too.

If you want to talk to a normal Muslim respectfully and get his attention about denouncing Islamists, I believe pointing out how the Qur'an is being used as a tool for evil by "wolves in sheep's clothing" is far more effective than saying his holy book--thus his "fundamental belief"--is indisputable proof that Islam is evil because it tells Muslims to go out and conquer the world by violence in the name of a spook.

It depends on what you want to do. Convince people or scratch an ugly itch.

Which do you think is a better fit for an intellectual who wants to improve the world?

I think normal Muslims denouncing Islamist fundamentalists is a good thing. And I think doing something to encourage that is far better than pointing the finger at Muslims with misleading oversimplifications and pissing them off.

I am reminded of how irritated I used to get in Brazil when certain Brazilians told me that all Americans only ate food out of cans, or other crap like that (some of it political). I would respond that, yes there is food in cans and Americans often eat it, but it ain't like what they were saying. That rarely made a difference, though, so I finally tuned them out.

I have no doubt this happens with Muslims when they listen to Westerners tell them--in sanctimonious all-knowing oversimplified wisdom--what they "really are" and point to verses in the Qur'an as proof (especially while ignoring the rest of it).

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I think the average Muslim, by and large, does not want to hurt anyone. However because of the internal culture and the specificity of the religious texts that tell Muslims how to live as well as the violence and calls for jihad outlined in the Quran, Sunnah and Sharia texts along with clerics openly calling Muslims to conduct it, I think it can make them prone to violence. Much more so than Christians or Jews.

Mike,

I totally disagree with this--especially since it is not based on anything but speculation based on Spencer-like speculation. I'm tempted to ask if you have any statistics or social data to back this up, but I already know that it is very unlikely.

Wrong once again.

Jewish Political Studies Review 16:1-2 (Spring 2004)

From the Intro:

More recently, especially since the events of 11 September 2001, many have posited that Islam is more conflict-prone than other religions. On the other hand, religions such as Buddhism - which include doctrinal pacifism - are seen as less prone to conflict. Nevertheless, nearly all of the evidence cited in such arguments is doctrinal, theoretical, or anecdotal. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to assess these arguments systematically, using empirical data on domestic conflict from 1965 to 2001 from the State Failure (SF) dataset.

A little further in:

Hypothesis 1: Islamic groups are more violent than other groups.

However, the results in Tables 1 and 2 are not consistent with regard to Hypothesis 1, which posits that Islamic groups are more violent than other groups. When examining the absolute level of conflict, Christian groups engage in the most conflict, but the level of conflict by Islamic groups began to approach that of Christian groups during the 1990s. When controlling for population size, Hypothesis 1 is clearly supported by the evidence. Thus, whether there is any truth to Hypothesis 1 depends on how one measures conflict. It is argued here that the proportional method is the most appropriate as we would clearly expect a larger group to engage in more violence simply due to increased opportunity. Once we account for this factor, Muslims clearly engage in more violence

From the Conclusion:

The results for religious conflict are clearer, as Muslim groups engage in the most conflict overall in both absolute and proportional terms.

Hey, but don't let reality spoil your fantasy.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

Here's a eye-opener if you are interested.

Let's start with an article right here on OL from Bernard Lewis for background (the article is called Freedom and Justice in Islam.) From that article:

In the year 1940, the government of France surrendered to the Axis and formed a collaborationist government in a place called Vichy. The French colonial empire was, for the most part, beyond the reach of the Nazis, which meant that the governors of the French colonies had a free choice: To stay with Vichy or to join Charles de Gaulle, who had set up a Free French Committee in London. The overwhelming majority chose Vichy, which meant that Syria-Lebanon—a French-mandated territory in the heart of the Arab East—was now wide open to the Nazis. The governor and his high officials in the administration in Syria-Lebanon took their orders from Vichy, which in turn took orders from Berlin. The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party. The Western Allies eventually drove the Nazis out of the Middle East and suppressed these organizations. But the war ended in 1945, and the Allies left. A few years later the Soviets moved in, established an immensely powerful presence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various other countries, and introduced Soviet-style political practice. The adaptation from the Nazi model to the communist model was very simple and easy, requiring only a few minor adjustments, and it proceeded pretty well. That is the origin of the Baath Party and of the kind of governments that we have been confronting in the Middle East in recent years. That, as I would again repeat and emphasize, has nothing whatever to do with the traditional Arab or Islamic past.

So you see the Soviet influence simply using formerly formed Middle East Nazi organizations for their own stuff. But Bernard Lewis did not mention what we did about it.

Try this article: The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda by John Loftus

That's not the only one, of course. For instance, you can do like he says in the article and Google:

Banna Nazi

for a lot more. And that's only a part.

Here are some choice passages from that Loftus article:

Let me give you an example. This year [2006] a friend of mine from the CIA, named Bob Baer wrote a very good book about Saudi Arabia and terrorism, it's called Sleeping with the Devil. I read the book and I got about a third of the way through and I stopped. Bob was writing how when he worked for the CIA how bad the files were.

He said, for example, the files for the Muslim Brotherhood were almost nothing. There were just a few newspaper clippings. I called Bob up and said, "Bob, that's wrong. The CIA has enormous files on the Muslim Brotherhood, volumes of them. I know because I read them a quarter of a century ago." He said, "What do you mean?"

Here's how you can find all of the missing secrets about the Muslim Brotherhood -- and you can do this, too. I said, "Bob, go to your computer and type in two words into the search part. Type the word "Banna," B-a-n-n-a. He said, "Yeah." Type in "Nazi." Bob typed the two words in, and out came 30 to 40 articles from around the world. He read them and called me back and said, "Oh my gosh, what have we done?"

. . .

At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.

Instead of prosecuting the Nazis -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab Armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Britain was not alone. The French intelligence service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi they could, but they failed to quash the State of Israel.

What the British did then, they sold the Arab Nazis to the predecessor of what became the CIA. It may sound stupid; it may sound evil, but it did happen. The idea was that we were going to use the Arab Nazis in the Middle East as a counterweight to the Arab communists. Just as the Soviet Union was funding Arab communists, we would fund the Arab Nazis to fight against. And lots of secret classes took place. We kept the Muslim Brotherhood on our payroll.

But the Egyptians became nervous. Nasser ordered all of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt or be imprisoned, and we would execute them all. During the 1950's, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood like Azzam, became the teachers in the Madrasas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabiism.

Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not. They think that Islam -- the Saudi version of Islam -- is typical, but it's not. The Wahhabi cult was condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. The Wahhabiism was only practiced by two nations, the Taliban and Saudi Arabia.

There's a whole lot more out there.

All you have to do is look it up and stop using sources like Spencer for your information on the "true intentions" of Muslims because of their religion and start looking at other explanations. After you have a bunch, analyze them and see which make sense to you and convince you credibility-wise.

I don't say don't look at Spencer's stuff. I think you have to look at everything. If you keep Spencer in context, you will learn something since he is not a stupid man. But the dude is an Islam hater and that's about as far as his own intentions go (his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding). He slants and he slants hard.

I believe people like him do an enormous disservice to the truth--and to peace--because he gets people wound up about the wrong thing--that is, if terrorism and Wahhabiism and things like that are the problems you want to understand and combat.

Michael