For phonetics:, Karen Armstrong the big time joke part one!

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Dec 14, 2006 at 18:44

My dear phonetics rabina yusa3idak wa yuwasa3 3aqlak al-sagheer akther wa akthar , may be you can go and ask your ignorant Mullah in your glorious madrassa to tell you what am I saying. Sorry your Allah knows no Urdu and I know the language of your Allah and your do not know any Arabic as you shall see below.

You wrote:

>with regards to Karen Armstrong you are going to have to take it up with her

But my dear phoentics you are the one who suggested in your bogus post that we readers must read our darling the fraudulent wannabe historian Ms Armstrong's little book "Muhammad" and why did you not suggest for example that we read ibn Hisham redaction of ibn Ishaq's "Sirat rasul Allah"? And I did read it in Arabic a language that you cannot even read.

> she never claimed to be a historian, a theologian but a historian, never

You must pardon me but Ms Armstrong the wannabe historian makes it very clear in here bogus biography of Abul Qasim aka Muhammad the Arabian war lord and caravan raider that she did not read the primary Arabic sources because she, like you, knows no Arabic. She makes it very clear that the source of her bogus biography is from the works of _other historians_ and not theologians and they are: Watt's and Rodison's biographies of Muhammad the Arabian war lord and caravan raider. But our darling Ms Armstrong and in her feeble mind believes that her bogus biography is a historical work.

But you know what? A biography is a wrok of history and by historians which she ain't! Theology? Your claim that her work is the work of a theologian and not of a historian is bogus and betrays your poor education.

Your claims so far are bogus and your Muslim education are just poor.

Stay tuned for part two where I will expose your poor Arabic!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".