[Dajjal]

Not what it was, but what it does

[snip]
It is not what it is, nor what it was, but rather what it does that defines a religion: How does a faith address the paramount concern of human mortality, and what action does it require of its adherents? I addressed these issues under the title Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life (September 19, 2006), explaining that jihad does for Muslims precisely what Communion does for Christians. It is not a doctrine but a sacrament, that is, a holy act that transforms the actor.

Indeed, Spengler is always thought-provoking. He got me to find Franz Rosenzweig's Star of Redemption and make an attempt to study it. Not easy reading.

I cannot think of any other op-ed pundit who would dare suggest that Muhammed is not the source of the Qur'an, or that the Qur'an might be an 8th or 9th century invention.

[Skywalk]

Spengler actually posted on jihadwatch. He’s not a bad guy and he is intelligent and well-spoken(written) but he made a mistake in equating Armstrong with Spencer and was overly broad and harsh in his statements about Spencer. Spencer is not who he portrays him to be and I think that’s where this little conflict came about.