Serial pest Nick Folkes and his micro-Party for Freedom have organised a party to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the racist pogrom in Cronulla. Joining him in this effort to stir up racial, religious and ethnic antagonism will be ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ Shermon Burgess and, presumably, an assortment of other racist thugs.
Anti Fascist Action Sydney is organising to oppose the racist rally. To keep up-to-date, please see the AFA Sydney blog and Facebook page and please spread the good word: — download a PDF version of the poster below here : cronullaneveragain.
See also : Anti-Islam ‘patriots’ set their sights on Cronulla, where it all began, The Sydney Morning Herald, October 22, 2015.
“The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.” – Winston Churchill. Suppression of dissenting views is what one expects from fascists/totalitarians. Freedom of speech is one of the very pillars of civilization. “To silence criticism is to silence freedom.” – Sidney Hook.
As for the brutality of religions-Christianity has almost grown out of its brutal past. Mind you, in spite of not having been around in Moses’ time, I suspect the passages to destroy some of the tribes in Judea was because they were degenerate societies, but once again, I was not around then. Having read the Qur’an, I see it as quite satanic. There are distinct scientific errors that an all-knowing and all-wise true god would not make. For example, a nufah (fetus) is not formed from a clot of blood. An all-knowing and wise true god would know this. Likewise, an all-knowing and wise god would know that hail does not come from the mountains of heaven.
The Qur’an clearly has errors that can not be explained-they make it fundamentally flawed. Either Allah is not a true all-knowing and wise god or Mohammad got things wrong or the Qur’an is not the direct and true word of god. Thus, following it to the letter WILL be incorrect behavior since there are demonstrable errors. If the Qur’an is really the true word of an all-knowing and all-wise god, there can be NO errors. Bit like a scientific theory – it takes just ONE significant error in the data, methodology or modelling of a theory to debunk it. So, like the catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming THEORY, it has more holes than Swiss cheese.
@High Treason
I’m not a scientist, but on the other hand you’re clearly no expert on the Quran or Arabic.
>>”For example, a nufah (fetus) is not formed from a clot of blood. An all-knowing and wise true god would know this”
In the Quran it says:
“And that He creates the pairs, male and female
From a sperm-drop [Min nutfah tin] when it is poured forth” (53:46)
The Arabic Nutfah (not Nufah) does not mean foetus, it means drop of sperm. And nowhere in the Quran does it say that a foetus is formed simply and only from a clot of blood. According to Lane’s Arabic Lexicon 1968:
“Alqat (clotted blood) is derived from the word Alaq which has several meanings.
Alaq bah means, it stuck fast, clung or adhered to it; it was or became suspended by it, it concerned him or it.
Almarat alqat means the woman became pregnant.
Alaq means blood or intensely red blood or thick or clotted blood because it is clinging together.
Alqat signifies a portion of clotted blood or the seminal fluid when it becomes like thick clotted blood after which it passes to another stage termed masfat.(lump of flesh)” (Lane)
The Arabic ‘Masfat’ has been used in the Quran to describe the foetus at its early stage:
“O people, if you are in doubt concerning the Resurrection, then consider that We have indeed created you from dust, then from a spermdrop, then from clotted blood [alqat], then from a lump of flesh [masfat], partly formed and partly unformed…” (22:6)
“Then We fashioned the sperm into a clot; then We fashioned the clot into a shapeless lump; then We fashioned bones out of this shapeless lump; then We clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed it into another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators” (23:15)
>>”Likewise, an all-knowing and wise god would know that hail does not come from the mountains of heaven”
“Hast thou not seen that Allah drives the clouds, then joins them together, then piles them up so that thou seest rain issue forth from the midst thereof? And He sends down from the sky clouds like mountains wherein is hail, and He smites therewith whom He pleases, and turns it away from whom He pleases. The flash of its lightning may well-nigh take away the sight.” (24:44)
Back when the Quran was revealed, people had not heard of the term ‘Cumulonimbus’, so the language used targeted a slightly wider audience than 21st century smart scientific types like yourself.
You do get a mention in the Quran though:
“”He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning — they are the basis of the Book — and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking wrong interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding”(3:8)
‘Well my basic position is that any Australian should be free to practice or not practice whatever belief system they like. I’m confident that’s the basic majority view in Australia, notwithstanding the absence of a ‘study’ you apparently require as substantiation. And also notwithstanding some obvious caveats, e.g. the actual practice of a belief shouldn’t contradict the initial principle.’
Well, my point stands, you expressed an opinion. Without supporting evidence you can’t state it as fact.
You are confident that the majority view in Australia is that anyone should be able to practise whatever belief system they like.
Generally speaking you are right. I would add one caveat, ie within reason. An extreme example. A group wants to resurrect the worship of Moloch. They wish to practise the rituals of this worship. No society would tolerate that.
A lot of Australians are coming to the realisation that some practices of islam are not compatible with our Judaeo-Christian foundation or our democratic system and therefore are not within reason. You might see yourself and the alleged majority of Australian muslims as peaceful muslims, being fully compatible citizens. Your unwillingness to answer the simple question of whether you would prefer to live under sharia belies that. It suggests you’re hiding your true view. I asked you a simple question, you didn’t answer it, but you called me a simpleton. No answer, but an insult. So again, I’ll take that as a yes.
‘In contrast, your own position, one which generalises and thereby discriminates against most practicing Australian Muslims (or what you euphemistically refer to as ‘imported Islamic doctrine’), runs directly counter to such a majority view.’
Such a majority view, in your mind. Do you speak for most practising muslims?
‘In other words, for yours to be the prevailing majority view, most Australians would have to forgo the notion of personal religious freedom in any instance where an Australian identifies as Muslim. That’s a discriminatory view that remains a minority one.’
Yes, it is a discriminatory view. Everyone discriminates. The same caveat applies.
The so called progressives are a well organised and long established phenomenon with a very loud voice in western societies. They won’t brook dissent from their narrative and will silence any voice that speaks out. It is very effective. Even our politicians are too afraid to say what they really think. It gives the illusion that the dissenters are a minority. They appear to be a minority, but the number of people in the West questioning islam is growing daily.
‘No, the Quran is definitely the same. The acceptance of Sunnah and Hadith is, for most Muslims I know, contingent (at the very least) on them not contradicting the Quran. The actual authenticity of Sunnah and Hadith may be a secondary consideration.’
‘The difference amongst Muslims is in their degree of religiosity, the interpretations they choose to make or follow, and their resultant practice.’
Same as other religions.
>>”Remember, verbosity does not equate to eloquence, a simple answer will do, spare us the waffle which up till now has been a hallmark of your posts.”
‘I apologise if you’ve found it hard to follow. But I must say, the brevity and silence that you’ve mostly employed in responding to earlier posts has hardly illuminated your own arguments.’
Pfft.
>>”Is it not the duty of every muslim male to fight the infidel until they submit or pay the jizya and feel themselves subjugated?”
‘No that’s not the case. And we’re not living in the time of the crusades, or a time when Muslims as a single entity are at war to stop the annihilation of religion.’
The first crusade was launched roughly three and a half centuries after the koran was compiled; strawman argument. Muslims as a single entity are at war to spread the islamic religion.
>>”Or is it more a case that muslims in Western nations will present a peaceful face while their numbers are small.”
‘No it’s more the case that peaceful Muslims will present a peaceful face (regardless of their numbers), and violent Muslims won’t.’
The beta males might.
>>” How did mohammed spread islam, by peacefully proselytising or by the sword? Give an honest answer.”
‘The honest answer is that you’re not really after an honest answer. During the lifetime of Muhammad(sa) he engaged only in defensive warfare.’
That is a myth promulgated by muslims and their apologists to sanitise the image of mohammed. And it is still being played today, the aggressor playing the victim card. I did want an honest answer, but I didn’t get one. Badr? Khaybar?
>>”Labels like bigot, racist, etc,etc ad nauseam have lost their potency and contribute nothing to the debate. They mark you as a totalitarian who will not tolerate a dissenting opinion.”
‘Hardly. The dictionary definition of bigot is: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”’
Like mohammed and his followers.
‘The UPF (as just one example) opposes Islam in general, i.e.they make no practical distinction between its followers. They oppose all mosques in Australia, regardless of the actual beliefs of those who will or do patronise them. In other words, they are (to quote the dictionary) “utterly intolerant” of Muslims.’
Yes, but to lump anyone who criticises islam in the same basket is disingenuous.
So no, on the contrary, ‘bigot’ contributes the precise meaning of what they and their like are, and what distinguishes them from other dissenting (and discerning) ‘Islam critics’.
>>”Divisive positions. Islam is divisive. It divides the world into dar al harb and dar al islam, as you know. That is the immutable word of allah.
‘Putting aside for a moment your casual assigning of your own limited understanding of Islam directly upon my beliefs – i.e. ‘what I apparently know’, the fact is that the terms you mention are not universally recognised amongst Muslims. Immutable word of Allah? The only ‘word of Allah’ I’m aware of is the Quran. And these terms do not appear in it.’
I’ll pay that one. It was a principle of islamic jurisprudence at various times and under various systems. It’s not in the koran. Yes, my understanding is limited. I was not born a muslim.
>>”Erdogan amongst others has said that there is no extreme or moderate islam, there is only islam.”
‘What has the personal opinion of a colourful Turkish leader got to do with me as an Australian Muslim? By your logic, I’m out to destroy Twitter: “We’ll eradicate Twitter. I don’t care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic.” – Tayyip Erdogan, March 20, 2014.’
Well, that was a flippant non answer that evaded the point. By my logic, the head of state of a powerful islamic country has made a statement. Is his view and that of the people who agree with him invalid?
>>”The vast majority of Australians are not interested in nor want this division in their society.”
‘I’d bet (sorry no studies to offer) that the majority of Australian Muslims are not interested in such a division either.’
No study maybe but you could test that theory at a hizbut tahrir conference or on a Friday afternoon in any number of mosques.
>>”Again you expose your inherent bias against critics of islam by labelling them a noisy, ignorant few. It might surprise you that these ignorant few are not as few as you imagine, and tolerance does have a limit.”
‘I’ve labelled ‘critics of Islam’ as no such thing. I do though specifically label the supporters of the UPF, PFF, ADL, RA etc with the term ‘ignorant’. But only because I find them overwhelmingly ignorant. And no it doesn’t surprise me that they also lack tolerance.’
They are the vanguard, similar in a fashion as Socialist Alternative Some of their personal histories are questionable as can be found in any group. That doesn’t give anyone the right to label all people who are suspicious of islam as bigots and nazis.
>>”Tell us what Islamic State has done that mohammed did not do. Members of Islamic State seem, to an informed outside observer, to be following the example of mohammed to the letter. They are practising islam in its purest form. Why would any peace loving person want to do that.”
‘I’m not aware of any peace loving person who does (follow IS). Peace loving Muslims overwhelmingly don’t (follow IS). I doubt you’re an ‘informed’ outside observer, since your proposition and conclusion re Muhammad(sa) is fictitious. Almost nothing of substance which IS engages in mimic the practices of Muhammad(sa).’
Saying that my premise is fictitious doesn’t cut it. I didn’t ask if peace loving muslims follow Islamic State. Try again – Tell us what Islamic State has done that mohammed did not do.
‘As one informed ‘insider’ relates, the religious motivation of IS members may be somewhat overblown.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-captors-didnt-even-have-the-koran-says-french-journalist-held-prisoner-by-group-for-more-than-10022291.html‘
That comes back to my earlier point that islam is a political system as well as a religion. Do you think the religious motivation of IS is overblown?
>>”I take it from your last paragraph that you don’t consider yourself and the so called ‘vast’ majority of muslims as jihadists.”
‘The popular use of the term ‘jihad’ denotes violence for the purpose of religious domination/hegemony. I don’t consider such a definition to be Islamic.’
You might not but a lot of muslims do, perhaps even the majority. I understand that jihad can stand for a number of defined struggles, including military jihad. Are you saying a mujahideen fighting in the way of allah is engaged in all sorts of struggle except military?
>>”Jihad is integral to islam, until the whole world has submitted. Allah said so, according to the koran”
Did He really? Where in the Quran does He say that? Jihad literally just means ‘struggle’ in the way of something. For instance, what is termed ‘jihad e akbar’ (literally: the greater jihad) is the struggle for personal reformation. Jihad e kabeer is to struggle for some great purpose with the truth. For example, this includes what is in contemporary times popularly termed, ‘jihad of the pen’. Jihad e asghar (literally: the lesser jihad) is to physically struggle for a purpose. This includes armed struggle, but subject to the restrictions placed on it in the Quran. Personally I only know and associate with Muslims who engage in jihad e akbar and jihad e kabir. The conditions for jihad e asghar no longer exist.
I’ll concede your point re the koran. But I will ask you, is the desire to retake formerly islamic lands such as Spain and the Balkans unislamic? There is no condition for jihad e asghar?
>>”And don’t quote peaceful verses, we know about Mecca and Medina verses and abrogation”
There is no abrogation of Quranic verses. So I’m not sure what it is you (we?) think you know.
I don’t agree. There are conflicting verses in the koran. Abrogation resolves those conflicts, as we know.
@Rossleigh
>>”Well, my point stands, you expressed an opinion. Without supporting evidence you can’t state it as fact. You are confident that the majority view in Australia is that anyone should be able to practise whatever belief system they like.”
Ok, you’re technically correct. But given that you also believe that “generally speaking” I am “right” on that point, what does it matter?
>>”A lot of Australians are coming to the realisation that some practices of islam are not compatible with our Judaeo-Christian foundation or our democratic system and therefore are not within reason.”
A lot of non-Muslim Australians are coming to the realisation that Muslims are not a monolith of belief or practice. And they’re realising therefore that pejorative statements regarding ‘Islam’ are, as a generalisation, less than useful. I also believe (without verifiable evidence such as a study) that most Australians acknowledge what is self-evident, i.e. that the vast majority of the nearly half a million Australian Muslims do embrace democracy and don’t consider it in any way a contradiction to their beliefs.
>>”You might see yourself and the alleged majority of Australian muslims as peaceful muslims, being fully compatible citizens. Your unwillingness to answer the simple question of whether you would prefer to live under sharia belies that. It suggests you’re hiding your true view. I asked you a simple question, you didn’t answer it, but you called me a simpleton. No answer, but an insult. So again, I’ll take that as a yes.”
I didn’t call you a simpleton; I said that particular question you were asking was a simpleton’s question. You may or may not be a simpleton, I don’t know, but one naïve question probably doesn’t confirm it. Apologies if any offence was taken.
The relevant point you keep avoiding acknowledgement of though, is the fact that your definition of sharia doesn’t match mine. I already consider myself to be living contentedly under sharia. As a practising Muslim I am ipso facto following sharia as I interpret and accept it. It may not be sharia in the very narrow sense that you define it, but it’s sharia nonetheless. If you want to extrapolate that answer to mean ‘yes I want to live under sharia as defined by you’, that’s your business. But it hardly makes it logical or true.
>>”‘In other words, for yours to be the prevailing majority view, most Australians would have to forgo the notion of personal religious freedom in any instance where an Australian identifies as Muslim. That’s a discriminatory view that remains a minority one.’
Yes, it is a discriminatory view. Everyone discriminates. The same caveat applies.
Err, no, not everyone discriminates against the followers of an entire religion based on stereotypes. Not everyone discriminates on the basis of title rather than specific individual beliefs and behaviour.
>>”The so called progressives are a well organised and long established phenomenon with a very loud voice in western societies. They won’t brook dissent from their narrative and will silence any voice that speaks out. It is very effective. Even our politicians are too afraid to say what they really think. It gives the illusion that the dissenters are a minority. They appear to be a minority, but the number of people in the West questioning islam is growing daily.
If politicians are not reflecting the will of their constituents, politicians who do will take their place. That’s how democracy works. By that measure, supporters of the UPF, ADL, RA etc are in a minority. People questioning Islam does not mean they therefore support these groups. People questioning Islam does not mean they will then conflate Muslims behaving badly with good Muslim citizens. And people questioning Islam includes people who are not alarmed by the answers they receive.
>>”Muslims as a single entity are at war to spread the islamic religion.”
Islamic State and their supporters thank you from the bottom of their hearts for helping promote this fantasy.
>>”‘The honest answer is that you’re not really after an honest answer. During the lifetime of Muhammad(sa) he engaged only in defensive warfare.’
That is a myth promulgated by muslims and their apologists to sanitise the image of mohammed. And it is still being played today, the aggressor playing the victim card. I did want an honest answer, but I didn’t get one. Badr? Khaybar?”
The definition of someone who has made their mind up on something then asking someone else about it for the purpose of re-confirming their own views, is not ‘someone seeking an honest answer’. It’s someone seeking confirmation of a pre-existing bias.
>>”Yes, but to lump anyone who criticises islam in the same basket is disingenuous.”
You keep saying that. And I keep wondering who here has done that? Complaints about lumping…same basket…the irony of it all.
>>”Well, that was a flippant non answer that evaded the point. By my logic, the head of state of a powerful islamic country has made a statement. Is his view and that of the people who agree with him invalid?”
He’s a politician. He was elected on a broad political platform, not simply for his personal views on Islam. Turkey was founded upon the secularist ideology of Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Ataturk) in 1923. It has an overwhelming majority of Muslim citizens, however that does not translate into a singular opinion on Islam. Most of Turkey’s Muslims support it remaining a secular state, e.g. as evidenced by the controversies surrounding the wearing of headscarves by those working or enrolled in public institutions.
>>””The vast majority of Australians are not interested in nor want this division in their society.”
‘I’d bet (sorry no studies to offer) that the majority of Australian Muslims are not interested in such a division either.’
No study maybe but you could test that theory at a hizbut tahrir conference or on a Friday afternoon in any number of mosques.”
I could test it at a Hizbut Tahrir conference. But that would only tell me what attendees to that conference think, not what the majority of Australian Muslims think. I’ve never heard any Muslim at the mosque I attend express an interest in any sort of division between Australian Muslims and nons. Not even once.
>>”They[UPF, ADL, RA etc.] are the vanguard, similar in a fashion as Socialist Alternative Some of their personal histories are questionable as can be found in any group. That doesn’t give anyone the right to label all people who are suspicious of islam as bigots and nazis.”
They’re not the vanguard. They’re the rabble rousing vandals. An assortment of loosely aligned groups expressing varying amounts of racial, religious and cultural bigotry, trashing the ethos and harmony of our nation.
>>”Saying that my premise is fictitious doesn’t cut it. I didn’t ask if peace loving muslims follow Islamic State. Try again – Tell us what Islamic State has done that mohammed did not do.”
That’s a long list. Almost nothing that Islamic State does correlates with the actions of Muhammad(sa).
>>”That comes back to my earlier point that islam is a political system as well as a religion. Do you think the religious motivation of IS is overblown?”
I think there is undoubtedly a Salafist element, especially amongst the core group of its followers. But there are also other non religious factors and motivations.
>>”‘The popular use of the term ‘jihad’ denotes violence for the purpose of religious domination/hegemony. I don’t consider such a definition to be Islamic.’
You might not but a lot of muslims do, perhaps even the majority. I understand that jihad can stand for a number of defined struggles, including military jihad. Are you saying a mujahideen fighting in the way of allah is engaged in all sorts of struggle except military?”
I’m saying the word ‘jihad’ of itself simply means ‘to struggle’ in some way for some thing. There is a specific condition laid out in the Quran which applies before a Muslim could legitimately claim that their armed struggle is ‘jihad’, i.e. Quranically sanctioned as that. That condition is simply that freedom of religion is being physically attacked and is under threat of destruction. There is no other religious sanction given in the Quran for bearing arms. None. That doesn’t mean that a Muslim can’t bear arms for other (non religious) reasons, e.g. in defence of the nation they live in, self defence etc. But such instances couldn’t be classified as ‘jihad’.
“Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged – and Allah indeed has power to help them –
Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ – And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty” (Quran 22:40-41).
“Allah forbids you not, respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you forth from your homes, that you be kind to them and act equitably towards them; surely Allah loves those who are equitable.
Allah only forbids you – respecting those who have fought against you on account of your religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and have helped others in driving you out, that you make friends of them, and whosoever makes friends of them-it is these that are the transgressors.” (60:9-10)
>>”I’ll concede your point re the koran. But I will ask you, is the desire to retake formerly islamic lands such as Spain and the Balkans unislamic? There is no condition for jihad e asghar?”
Correct. Refer to previous answer.
>>”I don’t agree. There are conflicting verses in the koran. Abrogation resolves those conflicts, as we know.”
Whether abrogation does or doesn’t resolve supposed conflicts for you is beside the point, since it isn’t a valid method for understanding the Quran.
Pingback: #Reclaim Australia : November 22, 2015 : Post-match | slackbastard
The whole problem is not the Muslims and not any other religion but rather the leaders of those religious sects that preach their own agenda to the masses that are too illiterate to read for themselves. Truth be told religion as a whole no matter which one you mention was formed when a conman met the first gullible person. Religions no matter what they are is a way to control the masses. More wars and hate crimes have been caused by religion than anything else. Notice I am not picking on any one group. Ban all religion. Make it illegal. We of the so called free world need to stop interfering in other countries and let them sort themselves out.
John: “Ban all religion. Make it illegal.”
Oh. And what theory of the State does John have? What force in this society could get this proposal up? And what would the results be?
You can’t control what people think – and the attempt to do so creates a ferocious dictatorship of the dimensions of the House of Saud, or Stalin’s Russia. What John is really wishing for is a magic wand that makes religions disappear. He should stick to Dungeons & Dragons (a game I heartily recommend), where magic wands work. In the real world, they don’t, and the search for them leads people in dangerous directions.
Kind of a satirical you are. The fact is some religions are incompatible in certain societies. When this happens to the point a religion wishes to impose their ways into a society and not in their home country then perhaps it is time we totally ban this religious group from coming into any country other than their own. Harsh yes but it would stop problems from developing in other countries. I have always been very tolerant of all cultures and religions but after trying to have some serious dialog with a certain religion and getting nothing but sarcasm and ignorant answers I am becoming like a lot of others and say NO to any muslim immigration to any free country. This has been brought on by the ones I have tried to talk to being ignorant and trying to play the poor us attitude. Never once has a question been answered directly and again I find it here. I am beginning to seriously think they all have the attitude of NO COMPROMISE on anything. It will be their way come hell or high water.
“Never once has a question been answered directly and again I find it here.”
John, I asked Rashid three questions more than once which he declined to answer. That says more than everything he wrote.
@Rossleigh
Declined? The only thing I’m declining is the apparent desperate validation you appear to be seeking for your own ignorance. And what this declination ‘says’ is that you’re nevertheless welcome to your own opinions, and welcome to continue to ignore the answers you’ve been given whilst bizarrely and simultaneously complaining that you’re being ignored.
My eventual disinterest in engaging with your stubborn denial of acknowledging that sharia is not restricted simply to what you imagine it to be, is not a declination on my part to answer the question. It is instead a willful continued refusal on your part to be bothered to understand what the word you’re using actually means.
And my brief but direct response to your query on how the actions of Muhammad(sa) differed from IS, encapsulated the rather obvious point that the two are antithetical in all ways that actually matter. Or were you expecting me to give a list of point by point juxtaposed behaviour?
Rossleigh, what’s glaringly absent from your questioning thus far, is an ability by you to actually make, argue or rationalise any of the points you’re implying. If you disagree with my earlier definition of sharia, tell us why? Similarly, if you see a significant similarity between the actions of Muhammad(sa) and the actions of IS, articulate what they are, and state the theological/historical sources underpinning your opinion.
Or is it the case, as now seems more likely, that you just didn’t get the sorts of answers you were hoping for?
Laying it on a bit thick, don’t you think?
“whilst bizarrely and simultaneously complaining that you’re being ignored.”
So Andy, do you know anything about islam? Do you know what it is you’re defending?