Dhimmi: Ma Gave La Nata!

Submitted by Phonetics (Indonesia), Dec 15, 2006 at 03:36

My dear phonetics rabina yusa3idak wa yuwasa3 3aqlak al-sagheer akther wa akthar (akhlak you mean? what arabic dialect are you writing in?), may be you can go and ask your ignorant Mullah (i don't know why you keep on going on about Mullahs, and my arabic is in question?It's Imam not Mullah, my arabic maybe in dyerstraights but Islam is not about being arabic, as in the case of Eid as I have told you before. Interpretations will be VAST and MANY) in your glorious madrassa (huahahahahaha! Now this is laughable! You really know nothing about Islam do you? I don't go to a MADRASSAH!!!) to tell you what am I saying. Sorry your Allah knows no Urdu and I know the language of your Allah (You do? how quaint, you are actually saying you can UNDERSTAND GOD?? This in itself explains to me that you know no Islam and your Arabic is False) and your do not know any Arabic as you shall see below (Astaghfirullah... You should repent).

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 (The reason being that if I gave you something too deep it would not be understandable, think of it as a sort of ISLAM FOR DUMMIES. But it is not a MUST, your choice. BTW Ibn Hisham is not something that is of my faith, perhaps more Al Buchori would be good, more truer to the faith.) .

> 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. (Does she? Well that's not what I read from her Biographical Data in her book. You can see it on the last page, it has big letters saying ABOUT THE AUTHOR. And yet again, no facts just what YOU SUPPOSE. yes she got her stuff from other historian and theologians, in Jerusalem, but still other peoples work.Man! I shouldn't have put any historical facts here, otherwise you might get the wrong idea and think that I was actually CONVEYING that I was a Historian!!!)

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 (If my education is poor then if I BETRAY that, grammatically and semantically, that would only mean that I made a good job... Hmmm stranger by the minute... .)

Your claims so far are bogus and your Muslim education are just poor (Wow! Is God telling you that? Even my Ustadz knows nothing about that!).

Stay tuned for part two where I will expose your poor Arabic! (BTW I never claimed to speak GREAT Arabic, but just enough to know that you are false in your words. Just using the word Allah as a name and not as a word you have undone yourself... No one who has the slightest knowledge in Arabic would do that, and also Allah is used by christians in south east asia so I'd be careful about the Allah talk if I were you)

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".