Silencing "Islamophobes"

Having gone through a couple of writings of Robert Spencer and other "Islamophobes" of the ilk, I can fairly say that one can't argue against them without declaring a vast body of early Islamic rulings as tentative and subject to change. A debate on "religion of peace - for all the people and all the times" ground is bound to backfire. One can rightly make a point that he is deliberately overblowing the religious aspect of Islamist terrorism - while overlooking the political factors underpinning it. However, doing that would be a rebuttal of Spencer's political opportunism, not the "defense of Islam" - as desired by Ummah. To make matter worse, "Ummah" is more likely to unleash fatwa brigade at the poor "defender of Islam" who dared to declare the "eternal and universal" teachings of Islam as changeable.

Re pitting Zakir Naik against Spencer, I wonder if Mr. Naik defended jihad in the way he has "defended" polygamy, who is going to end up as a laughing stock is anybody's guess. Take a look at this sermon. Speaks volume about the retarded mindset of the good doctor.

Reminds me of the Bollywood song, "Naik Naheen, Khal Naik Hoon Mein". LOL