SIR ILLIAM E. GLADSTONE was Prime Minister of Great Britain four times: 1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94. He called the Qur'an an "accursed book" and once held it up during a session of Parliament, declaring: "So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world."
The victorious Hugh Fitzgerald puts it this way: "The Qur'an remains the same. And the Hadith collections by the most authoritative muhaddithin, and the ranking of "authenticity" that they assign to each Hadith in their collections, remain the same. And the details of the life of Muhammadincluding the decapitation of the 600-900 prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the pleasure taken in the killings of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, the raid for women and loot on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis (who had not "rejected" Muhammad because they hardly knew he and his followers existed, but were attacked nonetheless), the marriage to little Aisha when she was nine, the deception"war is deceit"recommended by this, the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) to his followers, so well practiced in his "truce treaty" with the Meccans made in 628 A.D. at Al-Hudaibiyyahall this remains part of the biography of that Perfect Man."
Thus, Gladstone is added to the list of antiquities, of men of conscience and common decency with names like Jefferson, Adams, Schopenhauer, Churchill, who have investigated the written testimony of Islam, and found it abominable and permanently contrary to the dictates of human dignity.
Nineteenth century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer did not mince words in opining on the pernicious nature of Islam:
"Consider, for example, the Koran. This wretched book was sufficient to found a religion of the world, to satisfy the metaphysical need of innumerable millions of men for twelve hundred years, to become the foundation of their morality, and of no small contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and most extended conquests. We find in it the saddest and the poorest form of Theism. Much may be lost through the translations ; but I have not been able to discover one single valuable thought in it."
...while the ruthless Adolph Hitler, in all his bloody wisdom, had this to say:
“The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
And this from Teddy Roosevelt:
Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight.
Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.
Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Jan Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.
The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned.
There are such "social values" today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to dothat is, to beat back the Moslem invader.
And just for kicks, shall we revisit Sir Winston Churchill's verdict on the eery similarity between the Nazis and the Muslims:
"In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that even more important than invoking the famous British "stiff upper lip," to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies."