As we come close to the end of CAIR minor leaguer Omer Subhani's eleven-part attempt to "expose" me, we find our hero scraping the bottom of the barrel, tossing kitchen sinks, trying anything he can to prove me wrong -- except, of course, doing what he hasn't yet managed to do in nine attempts: actually showing what I say about Islamic supremacism, the jihad ideology, etc. is false.
And I am answering here to show the all-too-common mudslinging method of argumentation that Islamic spokesmen in the West use, and the hollowness of their arguments. Here are Parts I, II, III, IV, V VI, VII, VIII, and IX.
His Part X is called, with an admirable flair for numeration that he hasn't displayed before, "Exposing Robert Spencer Part X."
Blissfully unaware, or hoping you haven't noticed, that the arguments he has made have veered from the absurd (Muhammad was made victorious through "terror," not "terrorism"!) to the fictional (Spencer doesn't have books that were photographed on my shelf a year earlier), Subhani begins this one with a bit of chest-beating that is, once again, all too common. The Muslim Debater's Handbook must contain a passage that says something like, When Victorious, Claim Victory. When Defeated, Claim Victory. When Utterly Shredded and Humiliated, Claim Victory. Just as they will never, ever admit that any Muslim at any time or any place did anything that could ever be deserving of any kind of criticism whatsoever, so they will never, ever admit that they could possibly have been bested. So Subhani keeps on offering up his ad hominems, knowing that the hopelessly blinkered and the ideological die-hards will back up his claim to victory no matter what.
I recently added my refutations of Robert Spencer to the side of my blog for quick and easy reference for those interested in the continual blunders of a demonstrated anti-Muslim moron. When Spencer replied to my article on Juvenile Hadith Interpretations he demonstrated that he clearly could not counter a single point I raised against him. But more importantly for this thread he made more errors of scholarship in his rebuttal, errors that actually had me laughing out loud. Among them were:1. He stated that when the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said he was given the most concise words he was referring to the Qur'an. As I showed in my reply to Spencer, the Prophet Muhammad was speaking about his own speech contained in ahadith and not about the Qur'an, which are considered God's words.
In this Subhani refers to this passage from his Part VIII, which I passed over when I replied, since it is so utterly insignificant. But since he has brought it up again, let us let Subhani grasp at his straws. Here is the bit from his Part VIII:
...Spencer makes two mistakes there as well. The first isn't on the topic we are discussing, but I will mention it anyway. When the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said he was give the most concise words he was speaking about his own speech - the hadiths that were collected. He was not speaking about the Qur'an, as Spencer mistakenly says in his book. The evidence is in many books, but the most famous is the book entitled Al-Shifa by Qadi Iyaq al-Yahsubi, the great Maliki faqhi and muhaddith. Iyad says about the Prophet "He learned the dialects of the Arabs, and would speak to each of their communities in their own dialect and converse with them in their own idiom. He answered their arguments in their own style of rhetoric so that, more than once, a large number of his Companions had to ask him to explain what he had said. Whoever studies his hadiths and biography will know and verify that" (Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad translated by Aisha Bewley, 39). One can read this section of the book under the title of "His eloquence and sound Arabic" in Chapter 2, Section 5 of Bewley's translation.
This all sounds impressive, but there are just a few problems.
1. Muhammad said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings," or, as Subhani explains it above, "the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said he was given the most concise words." According to the traditional Islamic understanding, Muhammad was not given the Hadith, he was given the Qur'an. He was not sent with the Hadith, he was sent with the Qur'an. Subhani says the Qur'an is not Muhammad's words but God's words, but one is not "given" one's own words. One might be "given" God's words. Thus even as Subhani explains the statement itself, he shows that my interpretation is more likely than his.
2. When Subhani quotes Qadi Iyaq al-Yahsubi to support his claim, he gives us no indication that Qadi Iyaq al-Yahsubi is actually referring to this statement of Muhammad.
3. What possible difference does this make to the larger question of whether Islam teaches violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers? None. It's just a diversion, a red herring.
2. Spencer said the Muslims attacked the "workers of Khaybar" at the Battle of Khaybar. That's either a blatant lie by Spencer or another mistake he made. His own citation proves him otherwise. For him to come to such a conclusion is a total disregard for the very source he uses where it said clearly that the workers turn and fled away.
One of the best ways to tell when guys like this are lying is when they start saying that their opponent is lying. Here again is the passage from Ibn Ishaq, a pious Muslim who in the 8th century wrote the first biography of Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq is quoting one of the Muslims who was at Khaybar with Muhammad:
“When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him….We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.’”
Let's break that down:
Subhani: "Spencer said the Muslims attacked the 'workers of Khaybar' at the Battle of Khaybar. That's either a blatant lie by Spencer or another mistake he made."
Jihad warrior who was actually at Khaybar: "We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets."
Who's lying, Subhani?
Let's be even clearer: they didn't just "meet" the workers of Khaybar. They attacked Khaybar. The Muslim advance was inexorable. “The apostle,” according to Ibn Ishaq, “seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them.” Ibn Sa‘d reports that the battle was fierce: the “polytheists…killed a large number of [Muhammad’s] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them….He killed ninety-three men of the Jews…” Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants’ wealth. Kinana bin al-Rabi, a Jewish leader of Khaybar who was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of the Banu Nadir, was brought before Muhammad. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” Kinana said yes.
Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: “Torture him until you extract what he has.” One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana’s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, Muhammad bin Maslama, killer of the poet Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, beheaded him.
Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar go into exile, allowing them, as he had the Banu Nadir, to keep as much of their property as they could carry. However, he commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually. Muhammad agreed: “I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire.” He warned them: “If we wish to expel you we will expel you.” They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators’ land. A hadith notes that “the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives.”
Then come more minutiae. Subhani takes issue with this statement from one of my Qur'an blogs on Sura 18: "Some consider Khidr to be immortal (Ibn Taymiyya thinks so)."
Ibn Taymiyya never considered Khidr to be immortal - free from death. That would be akin to saying Khidr and God would live for eternity - that's complete blasphemy. I found a more thorough rebuttal of Spencer's erroneous comment at a site called seekingilm.com. You can see the relevant text by ibn Taymiyya stating clearly that he believed Khidr was alive, but not immortal as Spencer stated.
Subhani's problem here comes from his equating being immortal -- free from death -- with being eternal -- always existing. One might never die but have a beginning, and so would not be equal with God. Ibn Taymiyya, as Subhani admits, says that Khidr was still alive. Since the Qur'an depicts Khidr as talking with Moses, who lived in the thirteenth century BC, and Ibn Taymiyya died in 1328, for Khidr to have been alive in Ibn Taymiyya's day would have made him, oh, about 2600 years old. That would already place Khidr in the realm of supernatural beings.
Subhani's source for disputing this quotes an Islamic authority saying that Khidr will remain alive "until the Day of Judgement because of having drunk of the water of life." The writer then goes on to assert that this means that Khidr "shall taste death at the time of the day of judgement."
But this, of course, makes no sense at all, since at the Day of Judgment, in the Islamic view, all the dead will rise to be judged, and will then be in Paradise or in hell. So now we are supposed to believe that while everyone else who has ever lived will be rising from his or her grave, Khidr alone will be dying. Got it! (One could conceivably argue this on the basis of Qur'an 3:185, "Every soul shall have a taste of death." But at very least, especially if he has tasted the "water of life," the case of Khidr is ambiguous.)
Then we move on to honor killing, where I have aroused Subhani's ire by suggesting that the culture of honor killing might have been inspired in part by the curious incident in Sura 18 in which Khidr kills a young man because he knows he will become evil and grieve his parents:
Moving on to the first point raised about Spencer's Qur'an blog, namely the remarks about killing children. I don't even know what to say about where Spencer's mind goes or how he thinks because I find him to be more and more idiotic everyday and with every article he writes and with every comment he makes.The first thing I'll point out is that the hadith Spencer mentions is taken from the USC hadith compendium. It's found in Sahih Muslim and there are FOUR variations of the hadith of which Spencer chose only this version:
Book 019, Number 4457:
This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.
The other three versions mention that Yazid bin Hurmus related that "Najda b. 'Amir al-Haruri wrote to Ibn Abbas asking him about the slave and the woman as to whether they would get a share from the booty (it they participated in Jihad) ; about the killing of (enemy) children (in war) ; about the orphan as to when his orphanhood comes to an end; about kinsmen (of the Holy Prophet) as to who they are." The three other versions of this hadith all mention explicitly that Ibn Abbas was asked about the killing enemy children, not Muslim children. I think that needs to be clarified since Spencer, for whatever reasons, used the only version of the four that leaves out the fact that this question was about enemy children.
I chose the hadith that I referred to because in it, Muhammad says that one should not kill children "unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer)." The part about growing up to be a believer or an unbeliever is not in the other versions, and it is what I wanted to highlight: the idea that one could kill a child based on this criterion is in Islamic tradition as per this hadith, and referring to other ahadith doesn't change that fact.
There are two points that need to be clarified in regards to what Spencer said. The first I just highlighted above, that the issue was about the children of the enemies of the Muslims, specifically the polytheist enemies, as mentioned in one of the versions of the hadith. The second point is what did Ibn Abbas mean when he said "thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed." I do not have any hadith exegesis to support my interpretation
Ah.
...but I believe what he was saying was that unless you know the unseen (ghaib) like Khadir/Khidr knew the unseen (because God had given him such knowledge, while other mortals did not have that knowledge including Moses who was his companion on that journey) then you cannot kill the enemy child even if you suspected that the child was going to become an unbeliever when they grew up. This correlates nicely with basic principles of Islamic fiqh, namely that a judge can only judge what he or she sees as plain evidence and cannot make a judgment on subjective evidence.
And so on, to the peroration:
Can Spencer provide one example of a Muslim killing their relative based on such an absurd interpretation of this hadith, that a Muslim can kill a child based on one's subjective notion that such a child may become an unbeliever? I would like just one example because I've never heard of such a thing in relation to honor killings. They are called honor killings for a reason because someone's or some group's honor had been tarnished.The Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him, told his Companions not to kill their daughters. There are no reports that state any Companion killed their child because they knew that they would grow up to become an unbeliever and that they had the knowledge to make such a judgment, such as the knowledge that Khidr had.
Spencer out does himself again by making ridiculous statements about things he apparently has very little knowledge of. It just goes to show you what happens when someone like Spencer roams into territory that he is obviously unfamiliar with. It demonstrates clearly that his scholarship is "utter twaddle."
Subhani is sidestepping the real issue. Aqsa Parvez was strangled in Canada by her father for refusing to wear hijab. Amina and Sarah Said were shot dead in Texas by their father for dating non-Muslims. Might either of these fathers have had the idea that their deaths were better than their growing up to be unbelievers?
But of course, it is easier to abuse me than to tackle that issue.
l have come to believe that those who come to understand Robert, cannot remain a Muslim than those types that try to attack Robert and not the charges will never see the light and continue to attack the messenger and remain a Muslim.
Robert.
I take my hat off to you. I have done my best to read this chap's supposed rebuttals, and to say that his prose is turgid and impenetrable would be an understatement. As one reads his comments, one has the sense of sinking slowly into a vat of cold porridge. I even began to wonder if the insertion of the lengthy, oft-repeated 'PBUH' mantra is there simply to make his text further convoluted, so that it becomes next to impossible to detect a strand of logic that one can follow.
Could 'Obfuscation' be the Sixth Pillar of Islam?
Thanks for all your work - we appreciate you.
Regards,
Kevin
Spencer out does himself again by making ridiculous statements about things he apparently has very little knowledge of. It just goes to show you what happens when someone like Spencer roams into territory that he is obviously unfamiliar with. It demonstrates clearly that his scholarship is "utter twaddle."
The only "utter twaddle" I'm hearing is coming from Mr. Subhani.
He would like for the "territory" of islam to be off limits to critical non-muslims and implies that it is too profound and complicated for mere infidels to grasp, much less explain to others in books, lectures, and essays. I wonder if his theory applies to apologists like Karen Armstrong; I doubt it.
Islam isn't complicated at all. After cutting through the BS, which includes most of it, islam is incredibly simple. Islamic scholars have attempted to intellectualize the tripe of islam to lend it credibility and meaning beyond what it is: a doctrine of pure hate and perpetual war. The accoutrements tacked on islam to dress it up and legitimize it are obvious to anyone who chooses to examine it with an open mind.
If islam wasn't an insidious death cult, nobody would care what muslims believe. The non-muslim world cannot sit idly by while distinguished liars like Subhani attempt to do the impossible: convince the world that islam is an innocuous, germane religion while muslims around the world commit heinous atrocities and justify them with verbatim quotes from the qur'an.
Islam is fair game for criticism, condemnation, ridicule, and scrutiny. Thank God for Robert Spencer, who is one of very few who won't back down to arrogant, condescending islamic thugs like Subhani. And the estimable Subhani cannot refute or disprove anything Mr. Spencer has said or written about islam! Mr. Subhani is quite proficient at excessive pontification and obfuscation on the intricacies of islamic doctrine but ironically, his fellow muslims are inclined to believe and follow Mr. Spencer's unclouded exegeses, which are identical to those of numerous islamic "scholars", and that's what really matters. Something as hideous as islam cannot be dressed up and disguised forever, especially when many muslims are all too eager to proudly and loudly expose its true meaning and agenda.
I agree with Kevin. Muslims use such mind-twisting, mind-numbing "logic" when talking to infidels. I wonder if Robert feels his mind being twisted when reading or hearing this stuff. Does it require effort to break through the twaddle, or is Robert so familiar with this type of argument that he can keep his mind clear throughout and cut straight to the point?
Robert - Let us all take a moment to reflect on the fact that logic and reason are Western inventions and have only being added to the muslim lexicon recently.
More importantly, in an interview with Front Page, Nonie Darwish gives some excellent arguments as to why Omer Subhani will not honestly debate you-
"Darwish: The Arab culture is famous for its concept of pride. Image is very important and pride and shame are great motivators. Protecting the image of Muslims in front of the non-Muslim West is vital. Thus elaborate behavior is done to saving face. Admitting to a mistake can bring terrible shame and is not regarded as a virtue; those who admit to mistakes are not rewarded for their honesty but ridiculed and shamed or even severely punished. Until today most Muslims blame 9/11 on a Jewish conspiracy. The father of Muhammad Attah in Egypt, for 4 years denied that his son headed the 9/11 terror attack even when the whole world saw him checking into the airplane that slammed into the twin towers. Only recently Atta's father come out and admitted he is proud of what his son “the Shahid” and not the terrorist has done."
"There are people in Arab jails right now who are accused of defaming Islam or their country in front of non-Muslims. This defamation can be a simple praise of Christians or Jews and of being critical of radical Islam. Fear of being accused of defaming one’s tribe, nation or religion leads to a culture that tends to blame others rather than look within. The Judeo Christian culture concentrates heavily on the concept of “we are all sinners and only through the grace of God we can be saved.” That is a big relief to the Western psyche. Muslim education views members of other religions as sinners; the infidel non-Muslim sinners can only be saved by announcing they are Muslims. It is a prominent part of the Jewish faith to talk about God’s punishment when they are disobedient to God’s laws."
"That honest admission by Jews is not viewed by Muslims as a virtue and a step towards self-improvement, but as an admission of wrong doing and that Jews are bad and deserve God’s wrath; that is why to many Muslims Jews do not deserve land or a nation. “They themselves even admit that they are sinners,” I once heard a Muslim say. There is also a concept in Islam called “taqueya” which allows lying to non-Muslims if it is in the best interest of Islam. That concept is very deep in Muslim culture that we don't even think of the term “taqueya” any more; it has simply penetrated every aspect of Muslim life. Because of it there is very little self-criticism."
"Thus, saying sorry, admitting guilt or looking within for solutions is not a strong value; it will surely get a person in deep trouble instead. Such a person will bear the blunt of the blame for everything -- even for what he did not do; thus you have Muslim denials and defensiveness over matters that many in the West cannot comprehend. Muslims are in denial when they say that Muslim women have more rights than Western women; even many Muslim women convinced themselves with that and defend Sharia Law rather than say the truth in front of the non-Muslim West."
"Muslims are in denial when they say Israel is behind all Muslim terrorism across the globe, even 9/11; they are in denial when they say that Arab tyrants are the product of American foreign policy, but when America takes out Saddam, they say “you are interfering in our internal affairs.” That is why many Muslims say one thing to the West in English and the opposite to Arabs in Arabic."
"Shaming is prominent in the Arab child. To avoid the intense pain of shaming, denying responsibility turns into a virtue to save face and protect one's pride. The concept of “taqueya” is one of the reasons many Muslims were silent after 9/11. Only a few were speaking out honestly and openly by admitting there is a problem in Muslim culture that needs to be examined and corrected. The few Arab Americans who did that where not rewarded for their honesty by their Muslim community; instead they were condemned, shunned and shamed by the majority of Muslims. They are doing everything they can to silence us. They do not want to get into Western style dialogue with us or debate us in the open."
Subhani's writing is intended for Muslim ears.
Robert - Let's break that down:
Subhani: "Spencer said the Muslims attacked the 'workers of Khaybar' at the Battle of Khaybar. That's either a blatant lie by Spencer or another mistake he made."
Hadith - Jihad warrior who was actually at Khaybar: "We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets."
Robert - Who's lying, Subhani?
-----------------------
Well done Robert, good to see you broke that down to show clearly that Subhani is infact lying.
Very interesting to watch Muslim sidestep and dance, lie and twist, manipulate and attack. They had a Muslim debater guidelines over at Islamwatch several months back. It was really amusing. I think it was called "how to debate a non muslim". It was amusing but so true.
Hats off Robert !
Regarding the denial of the killing of the farmers of Khaybar (by Subhani), I found this quote on the p.o.d. site:
Bukhari:V5B59N512 "The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer [Prayer of Fear] near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, 'Allahu-Akbar!' [Allah is Greatest] Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a hostile nation to fight, then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.' Then the inhabitants came out running on their roads. The Prophet had their men killed; their children and women were taken as captives."
Of course this must be a mistranslation, or out of context; what it really means to say is that they all had a paintball fight and then went off together to have lemonade and ice-cream.
Spencer- X
Subhani- 0
"Could 'Obfuscation' be the Sixth Pillar of Islam?
Thanks for all your work - we appreciate you.
Regards,
Kevin"
Actually, Kevin, obfuscation is the foundation upon which the five shaky pillars rest.
Robert -
This quote (from the Basra honor killer) would seem to confirm your observation about Khidr -
For Abdel-Qader Ali there is only one regret: that he did not kill his daughter at birth. 'If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her,' he said with no trace of remorse.
Honestly I don't know where Robert gets the perseverence to keep doing this. It's almost beyond me to keep reading all of it, I can't imagine writing it.
Reading it even gets to be depressing after a while, whereas our Mr Spencer never seems to lose his optimism that, so long as truth is in the field, truth will prevail.
In the Middle Ages the singing of the Divine Office was called "the work of God" and cloistered religious were admired for doing it on everyone else's behalf. I think Robert Spencer is doing the work of God of our time. With all the vilification he receives, I hope he realizes how appreciated that work is.
It's perhaps dangerous to read between the lines, but sometimes it is more what's left unsaid than said. I see some dark emanations cracking through, especially that the author might be comfortable with child killing where positively or not negatively sanctioned, "enemy" or otherwise.
Or on the "side-step" of a father's or families' "honor" being dependent upon his/their taking up the mantle of judge and jury, and exacting "divine" Qur'anic penalties, the author's comfort with obfuscating the issue with a disquisition upon foreknowledge.
These are not trite or inconsequential topics, no mere intellectual exercise for semantic games.
The basic issue is does an individual have authority to commit these acts, at all? Would the individual commit these acts, even if he did? And, what do the answers say about the individual, and about the religion that inspired him?
Novalis
You are so right. Over the years I've sent (E Mail attachments)to Mr Spencer events of interest referring to the Ummah's "doings" around Missouri/Illinois and he's used them (when and only of import-his site-he decides)...all on his time...I've a job as probably most posters do and am very, very to state it mildly appreciative of JW and Mr Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald and Marisol...attended a preschool graduation today..kids going on to kindergarten and an open mind..thought.thank God people like Robert are fighting that Mind-Control-Islam will never take over...NoDak
A couple of postings, from the archives, to do with some commonly-observed Muslim debating techniques:
"The Muslims use the following tactics, in self defense when exposed.
1. They attack the source, the ad hominem
2. they change the subject, and if possible try to impugn your character and make you the subject, failing that distract, distort, deny
3. They cry hate and try to put the kaffir on a guilt trip: they are quick learners, because guilt is an alien concept in Islam, but it is both a defect and humanizing in westerners.
I get the hate charge thrown at me all of the time, with the expectation I'll go on the defensive and thus change the subject so they can go on the attack.
Doesn't work on me, I'm a quick learner and I've studied Muslims and learn what I needed from them.
4. Lastly, the operating word to describe Muslims is aggressive (like the operating word to describe Judeo Christians is guilt) always expect them to be aggressive and cry persecution and foul, even when they initiate aggression.
The leit motif is that the kafir (like the Israels or Amriki in Iraq) are not supposed to defend themselves when they attack; in the Muslim world defense by the kufr is aggression.
Posted by: Giaour at May 21, 2005 12:59 AM".
And from the same poster, another summary:
"When conversing with Muslims remember these simple rules.
'1. Islam is perfect (The perfect ideology for the world).
'2. By extension an Islamic is perfect and can do no wrong.
'3. Islam is never the aggressor or wrong, because it is perfect and only the imperfect who resist Islam are wrong. The imperfect unbeliever is the aggressor for resisting perfect Islam.
'4. The Muslim is ALWAYS correct, it is the fault of the imperfect unbeliever that he doesn't understand Islam - as he has not been schooled in the right way.
'Has anyone ever seen an Arab/Muslim accept personal responsibility about anything, or ever cop to error or mistakes? I haven't.
' At the very least it is Insha'allah (The will of Allah), thus eliminating the need to accept responsibility.
' BTW, Muslims play the guilt card with Kaffirs, but the guilt card does not play on a Muslim table.
' If you have one word by which to describe those raised in the Judeo Christian World it is guilt {DDA note: comes from having a truth/ falsehood worldview – things are objectively the case, or not, whether they are psychological facts or ‘material’ facts].
'Aggression and aggressiveness defines the Arab/Muslim
'Bear that in mind when cross talking with a Muslim.
'What Muslims respond to, and viciously, is shame and ridicule. 'Especially ridicule, because that is their chief dialectical tool, invoked against Kaffirs.
'Muhammad was thin-skinned, his response to ridicule was slaughter (fitnah is worse than slaughter).
'The Qur'an toilet riots, were a response to perceived ridicule of the basis of their ego and identity.. thus themselves.
Posted by: Giaour at June 21, 2005 2:57 PM".
Right on, Giaour. Those of us who have posted here awhile and tangled with the occasional Muslim Disruptors who pop up, from time to time, have noticed that their discourse tends to exhibit some or all of these distinguishing features.
From another poster, called 'Arnie', a true gem that he crossposted here from 'Islamwatch'. Read through it and then go back over the whole epic: Subhani's attack on Spencer, and Spencer's responses. See how many of points 1-20 you can identify and check off, in Subhani's discourse.
"Muslim's Way to Refute the Facts - by Infidel
"07 Dec, 2006
"Whenever you criticize anything related to Islam, Allah, Muhammad, Sharia laws or muslim community, you will find a refutation immediately. To refute something is OK but the way muslims refute is funny. Here are some most common ways of a muslim-refute, the order may change depending upon your and the muslim’s caliber:
' 1. First of all, muslims will say, “This is false information”, “This is a lie”. Whatever you say is wrong and whatever they say is only right.
'2. Next step is Taqqiya. i.e. “Islam means peace”, “Islam was not spread by sword but love”, “No compulsion in religion”.
'3. If you quote from Koran or hadith, you will be accused of quoting verses in bits and pieces.
'4. And be prepared for accusation that the verses you quoted are twisted and out of context.
'5. If you provide reference to your quote, then muslims will say “All your references are false and lies”, which implies only their references are true and correct.
'6. You will be advised to “Read the koran first and you will see the light”.
'7. If you say you have already read it then they will doubt you as if you are a liar.
'8. If you quote full verses (not bits & pieces) from koran and hadith, your translation is incorrect / misleading. Then you will be advised to learn Arabic and read original version.
'9. If you say, I read the same Koran with most authentic translations, which muslims are referring to, then you will be asked “Did you read only the cover?”, “Read it with open mind” (tr: Read with closed mind, like a muslim reads by keeping thier brains aside).
'10. Besides your reading of translated Koran or even though you know arabic, if you quote Koran, they quote hadith, tafseer etc, if you quote hadith, then they will say "Only Koran is authentic".
'11. After all this, you are still willing to continue, they will distract you and other readers from original issue/topic and feed plenty of irrelevant issues.
'12. You are still sticking to the original issue. Muslims will refer to your / other religions’ scriptures like Bible, Torah, Vedas, Geeta etc and other events and personnels like Bush, Blair, Indira Gandhi, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine etc.
'13. Be prepared for one or more muslims to showing their way of convincing, such as: Copy & paste stuff or reference from crap Islamic sites. This includes verses from Koran & hadith, twisted facts from non islamic holy scriptures like mohammad is prophesied in all of them.
'14. In this connection, one or more muslims will write about Miracles in the Koran. Remember that whatever is discovered in recent time, Muslims will attribute it to Koran, but they will keep quiet till it is discovered. They will never say about the fallacies in Koran like “Sky is a dome on imaginary pillars”, “Sun sets in mud”, “sun revolving around the earth” etc. If you draw their attention to these fallacies, they will copy and paste crap again which is totally illogical and irrational. You will be again advised to read Koran.
'15. You are about to lose your patience but still continuing, then comes personal attack. You will be abused as fool, stupid, idiot, pig, dog etc.
'16. If that does not work, then there will be accusation of taking money for your criticism of islam. You may get this also: “Western media is biased, its propaganda to defame islam, Islam is wronged by all non muslims” etc.
'17. Even then if you are not stopping, then muslims will run for your mother and sister.
'18. You are stubborn and still want to continue, you will be cursed like “Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, still time to seek the truth” etc {sounds like the standard contents of Mr Spencer's Hate Mail Bag - DDA}.
'19. Towards the end, when all above ways are failed, you will be threatened directly like, “beware, watch it, keep cool, my sincere advice” or indirectly like “Give me your email id, don’t hide behind false name, you are a coward (since you have false id on net), and lastly invitation to go to debate one to one or visit mosques or Islamic centers like Islamic Research Foundation in person” etc. {again: sounds like the standard contents of Mr Spencer's Hate Mail Bag}.
'20. And finally- it’s drum beating, for all Muslims, as if they won a debate, even when they lose miserably, because Koran is the word of allah.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Infidel.htm
'Posted by: Arnie at December 8, 2006 6:47 AM"
Equally amusing: an outline of 'debating techniques' found by DP111 on Ali Sina's Faithfreedom site, covering similar ground to the material found by 'arnie', but with heavy irony adopting the Muslim POV. Given that it was over at Ali Sina's, the author is probably an apostate having fun 'lifting the lid', as it were.
"HOW TO DEBATE AND FRUSTRATE INFIDELS - Author : Ayesha Ahmed on Mar 10, 2007 - 01:50 AM
"Dear brothers and sisters in islam:
"We live in kuffar country and daily we have to face the infidels who criticize islam and our prophet, and who want to debate us.
"In an Islamic country if some one did that all we have to do is to announce loudly what he said and the rest is taken care of by an angry mob. The critic is lynched in no time. End of the story.
"However here we don't have that luxury as yet. Inshallah in forseeble future after we grow by conversions of morons and criminals in prisons, legal and illegal immigration and procreation we will, inshallah, become a majority and will not have to face this problem on daily basis.
"However, for the time being following is an approach all muslim brothers and sisters can use when faced with such a pest. Jazakallah Khair. Inshallah the vermin will steer clear of you in future.
'1. A popular question is - "why islam calls for death of Islamic critics and apostates". Insist that their info is false. Quote aya "to you your religion and to me my religion".
'2. To answer "Islam spread with sword", say that it is a big lie spread by the jews and hindus and that quran clearly says " there is no compulsion in religion".
'3. If some one quotes violent ayas from Koran, accuse him of quoting ayas in bits and pieces and cherry picking .
'4. If he then quotes full ayas and ayas before and after, then insist that the translation is wrong.
'5. If he brings ten different translations then say correct meanings can be understood only by reading Quran in Arabic.
'6. If he happens to be well versed in Arabic language than insist that those ayas don't mean what they appear to mean as they have allegorical meanings.
'7. If he is adamant, than say you cannot understand those ayas and it's out of context without reading hadith and sira.
'8. If he shows up with the hadiths and siras in hand and quotes the context of the violent ayas by referring to hadiths of prophet's rapes, robberies , assassinations and genocides then insist that "all hadiths and siras are heresay and are false, and only truth is in quran.
'9. If he says Quran is a man-made document and wants proof of its divinity then refer to the sciences in Quran and the book written by Dr. Bucaile confirming the sciences in our holy book. You can also quote that Mahatama Gandhi read Quran daily and also spoke highly of it.
'10. If he says that Bucaile was on Saudi payroll and that neither he nor Gandhi ever changed their religions and that Bucaile was challenged and proven wrong by many experts then challenge him to ask his experts to debate islamists like Zakir Naik.
'11. If the pest still hangs around then change the topic and find faults in other religions and their books.
'12. If he continues on then use personal attacks and insult him by calling him a jewish a- hole , a Chinese pig or a hindu dog.
'13. If that does not frustrate him, then ask him how much he is being paid by jews to throw dirt on Al Islam.
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1146&theme=Printer
- Posted by: DP111 at March 24, 2007 7:53 PM"
Again: it might be amusing to print this out, together with Subhani's 'expose' of Spencer, and go through, pen in hand, ticking off which tricks, from among items 1-13, have been employed by Subhani.
What I found very interesting in all my discussions with Muslims on the message board I was a regular at for 6 years (before I was banned and blocked by IP for my anti-Muslim posts) is that Muslims tell you a hell of lot more about Islam in their defense of it, than they do when they simply declare its virtues.
For example, here's one of the quotes this idiot used in an attempt to prove Robert wrong about the killing of children:
"The three other versions of this hadith all mention explicitly that Ibn Abbas was asked about the killing enemy children, not Muslim children. I think that needs to be clarified since Spencer, for whatever reasons, used the only version of the four that leaves out the fact that this question was about enemy children."
I don't know how to use mark ups here, but notice the clear distinction between non-Muslim and Muslim children. Notice also that he doesn't say "the children of enemies", even though he tried to to start out that way, but in the end it comes down to non-Muslim children vs Muslim children.
So all non-Muslim children are enemies and can be killed. Which is why 19 Muslim men boarded 4 airplanes on 9/11, saw children, and carried out their plans anyway.
They really do think that way. And it is all of them. Their true thinking really only comes out when they are naive enough, or stupid enough, to think that if they just explain it, everyone will understand it the same way they do.
I would add this to the list of the tactics used by Muslim and their liberal Muslim defenders whenever Islam is criticized:
Don't bother quoting anything from the Koran or Hadiths. It's a waste of time. Some liberal will counter with Bible quotes.
Just let Muslims keep talking. Like this jerk, they will give themselves away every time.
RObert should keep going because this is the only way to shut them up.
They will argue and argue and at one point they will forget their previous lies and Boum! fall in the trap.
When they try to explain the Koran, something in their neurons automatically disconnects and comes the state of confusion.
I tried to submit a comment to Sunhani's blog, but since all comments are posted after they are approved by the blogger, I seriously doubt it will get posted.