An informed citizen fights back

He also claimed that I "deliberately lied" and that when I did my radio talk show in Panama City, I "repeatedly incited hatred against the Muslim community and made false, libelous, and defamatory statements."

Well, that's pretty much the norm, that and the bigot and racist accusations. It's very difficult to defend abuse, but muslims do a fair job of it.
Many irresponsibles on the left use the same language. They don't know much about Islam, but they know to call you a racist, bigot, fear monger, and all around bad guy, if you even say the truth about Islam. No one has to lie, the truth is damning enough. 'The truth is no defense', claim the clever.
Well it is in Islam. The truth is held up like a shield...Islam hides its lies behind the truth.
This is the essence of taqiyya. A lot like the 'Portrait of Dorian Gray'. A false front of truth covering dark evil. Informed kuffars, punch hole's in the image, exposing the rot behind it. These people are called Islamophobes, by the real Islamophobes, who are muslims. Not fear 'of' Islam, fear 'for' Islam. No perceived attack on Allah, no matter how small, or valid, will go unpunished. 'Know the truth of Islam, and the truth of Islam will set you free. Free from what? From the truth of Islam'. This is the basis of apostasy. Iran is now considering legislation for the death penalty for apostasy.
And why not? This is a worse violation against Allah than homosexuality or infidelity. Islams reverse polarity, Sharia is the truth, Allah is a lie...but Mahdi will emerge from the well just the same. He will wear the mantle of the worlds leading Islamophobe. His motto, borrowed from Mighty Mouse, is 'Here I come to save the day'...
The muslim day, not yours you filthy kufr's. Sounds a lot like Obama...Vote accordingly...The truth depends on it.

One of the things Muslims hate most is a well informed infidel...it is no surprise that the Muslims are so against freedom of speech as it exists in western lands. It is no surprise that Muslims support the dhimmicrats who strive to starve talk radio shows off the air. It is no surprise to find Muslims are doing all they can to insure that the tvs, radios, internet, politicians , schools, and other entities cannot use the words jihad, Muslim terrorist, Islamic holy war, or to tie any violent Muslim behaviour to Islam (despite the overwhelming evidence). IN Muslim countries they execute people who identify Islam as the root cause of Muslim violence..Muslims courts cry out "deviant behavior"...

when dhimmicrats cry out to curtail or ban talk radio...look at who so ever is crying and see if you can find out who is supporting them...don't be surprized if some Islamic sounding names appear on the radar screen..

Instead of retorting "Islam isn't a race", he should have turned the accusation against his opponent, by claiming that since his opponent thinks Islam is a race, when clearly it is not, the therefore his opponent is not very knowledgeable about Islam, to have made such a very basic mistake.

When one's opponent makes an error like that, then it is good to poke the wound and make one's opponent suffer for having uttered it.

The link http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/172 leads to a document that starts ouit saying:

"It [CAIR]offers a benign mission statement - "to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.""

Except for the reference to "American Muslims" it would seem that CAIR would have more work to do pursuing these goals in Saudi Arabia than in America.

Rogster...

I agree about the challenge, but the charge of racism is not a mistake. It is a tactic, designed to put one on the defensive. Like 'when did you stop beating your wife'? The antagonist knows perfectly well you don't beat your wife, and muslims know perfectly well that Islam is not a race. Racism/bigotry as an accusation, is a form of
assault, or 'counter punch taqiyya', used by muslim Islamophobes who can't make a point otherwise.
It is always they who bring up race, making them the real racists, even if Islam is not. Islam is not a race, but it is chuck full of racists.

But the barrel itself is rotten, and so go the apples...
:)

The minute the word "racism" is raised by a Defender and Protector of Islam, have at the immediate ready the names of John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, David Hicks, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, and others to show that what matters is the Total Belief-System to which some have willingly enslaved themselves, and that beliefs, systems of ideas or notions parading as ideas, can be attacked, and could never constitute "racism" because they are not inherent, they are not unavoidable, and at a certain point, whatever one's understanding that some have been born into Islam through no fault of their own, and so great is its hold on them, and so powerful, supported and reinforced by every element in a Muslim society and state, that nonetheless those who, as in the West, now have the perfect freedom to choose, and continue to defend and lie about Islam to Infidels, are no different from propagandists on behalf of any ideology -- Nazism, Communism -- that have in the past been intelligently recognized as a threat to freedom, to our legal and political institutions, to our everything.

Have the reply ready. Have it practically pre-fabricated. Become the exactly the kind of phoner-in to talk shows, the kind of writer-in of letters, that makes you a one-man multitude, exactly the kind of person who cannot be rebutted, and the resulting display of hysteria by your Muslim opponent, on a radio or television show, or in print, will be instructive for listeners.

"In his letter, Dr. Mubarak accused me of 'ugly bigotry and racism.' I did not realize that Islam is a race. He also claimed that I 'deliberately lied' and that when I did my radio talk show in Panama City, I 'repeatedly incited hatred against the Muslim community and made false, libelous, and defamatory statements.' "

These are exactly the kind of complaints that will be legally actionable if Organization of the Islamic Conference chief Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and UN Special Rapporteur Doudou Diène have their way. To that end, they are waging a propaganda campaign that will culminate in the UN's "Durban II" conference in Geneva next April, at which "Islamophobia" will be the primary focus. The Bush administration has refused to attend preparatory meetings for Durban II, voted against UN resolutions supporting it, and even withheld a proportional share of the funds that support both it and the UN Human Rights Council under whose auspices it will be held.

Would an Obama administration continue that policy? Let us hope we do not have to find out.

**Instead of retorting "Islam isn't a race", he should have turned the accusation against his opponent, by claiming that since his opponent thinks Islam is a race, when clearly it is not, the therefore his opponent is not very knowledgeable about Islam, to have made such a very basic mistake.

When one's opponent makes an error like that, then it is good to poke the wound and make one's opponent suffer for having uttered it.
Posted by: Rogster at June 29, 2008 9:55 AM

**Rogster...
I agree about the challenge, but the charge of racism is not a mistake. It is a tactic, designed to put one on the defensive.
Posted by: duh_swami at June 29, 2008 10:49 AM

True; it is a tactic, not a mistake.

Unfortunately, most Americans, not knowing that, would likely believe the claim, if left unchallenged; especially if delivered by a brown-skinned Muslim.

Exposing that tactic--as an error, as faulty knowledge of Islam--would cast a cloud of doubt and suspicion over his entire presentation; placing him on defense.

IMO, retorting, on the spot, that Islam is not a race would do that.

Well said Hugh,with one additional point of concern for those modern day Paul Reveres amongst us: the need for vigilance and personal protection,in anticipation of the most predictable "rebuttal" many of this ilk are prone to resort to when dealing with detractors.

There can be no valid refutation of Doc Washburn's letter because it tells the truth (very well and thoroughly). Therefore, any response by this Mubarak character will be more obfuscation (a la the bogus racism charge) of Islam's true intent. I just hope that more and more Americans are taking note of how deceptive apologists for Islam are and are grasping just how invidious the Islamic faith really is. Yep, I sure hope so.

I agree about the challenge, but the charge of racism is not a mistake. It is a tactic, designed to put one on the defensive.
Posted by: duh_swami at June 29, 2008 10:49 AM

Rogster, you have the right angle, IMHO.
Whether it's a mistake or a tactic is irrelevant. The words that came out of the man's mouth were wrong. The best way to answer is to challenge what is being said. Even if your opponent knows full well that Islam is not a race you have to make him say so for your audience.
What better way to force him to explain himself than by pointing out how his statement doesn't conform with Islam, that it is a "mistake" and that since he doesn't understand the most basic facet of Islam that his word cannot be accepted in other Muslim matters? Either he's mistaken or he is a liar. Suggest he made a mistake and see how he deals with it. It will be instructive for all.

The "racist" slur comes up almost every time Islam is discussed.

One response that tends to cause an immediate backtrack is: What "race" is Islam? Caucasian, like Bosnian Muslims? Black, like African Muslims? Semitic, like Arab Muslims? Southeast Asian, like Malaysian Muslims? Asian, like the Uyghur in China? Pacific Islander, like Filipino Muslims?

Which race is it?

The Bunglawussy on his 'Islamophobia Watch' website brazenly declares that Islamophobia is 'Anti-Muslim Racism'.

It is a tactic that works.

One could counter with 'when will you stop beating your wife' or 'when did you commit your last honor killing'-
they been getting away much too long with this false accusation.

Lately, I've been running into the retort that the doctrine of Abrogation has been "rejected by scholars" or otherwise is not part of the consensus of mainstream islamic scholarship.

While I have good material for virtually every argument, on that one issue, I'm stuck . .

Anyone got any good material to prove that the doctrine of Abrogation is part of mainstream islamic construction/interpretation?

In chapter 2:106, the Qur’an plainly indicates,

"Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof."

Furthermore, abrogration did not come out of nowhere. It originated from the need to reconcile contradictory staments in the qur'an. If abrogation is not valid, then there are all sorts of contradiction in the qur'an. Is it "to you my religion and to you yours" or "after the sacred months have passed look for the infidels and kill them wherever you can find them"?

Can you gamble after you have provided for your needs Q.2.219 or is gambling completely prohibited Q. 5.90?

Is the qibla towards Jerusalem still valid or has it been abrogated so that nowadays is towards Mecca?

etc, etc,

With abrogation Islam looks bad. Without abrogation, it looks worse.

and why are we allowing more muslims into America?

Posted by ploome:
and why are we allowing more Muslims into America?

I blame it on the Statue of Liberty.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Ok, that was fine for a while. We’re full now. No Vacancy.

For years people the world over have treated it as an inalienable right to become an U.S. citizen if they could just tag up. It’s time to stop the influx of hostile immigrants. I’m hugely worried about the first generation of native born jihadists that await us in a few years. But lets apply direct pressure to the worst bleeding first. It's past the time to place limits on immigration.

Richard,

Here's an email I received from Mark Krikorian today.

"My new book is being released this week: The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal, published by Sentinel, part of the Penguin Group.

The central point of the book -- the part of the ''Case'' that's ''New'' -- is that mass immigration is incompatible with modern society, not because the immigrants are different, but because we are. The changes that mark a modern country -- in the economy, society, government, technology, etc. -- are so fundamental that America's past success with immigration is no longer relevant. In other words, large-scale immigration was an important phase in our national development, but one we have outgrown.

The book has chapters on sovereignty, assimilation, security, the economy, government spending, and population, as well as a final chapter outlining in some detail what a modern American immigration policy should look like.

David Frum of the conservative American Enterprise Institute has written that the book ''will head any list of the outstanding public policy books of 2008. ... This is a book that will anchor the national conversation on immigration in the months ahead''

Mickey Kaus, a liberal journalist and welfare expert has written, ''It is to the immigration debate what Losing Ground was to the poverty debate. My copy is already dog-eared.''

To see more advance reaction to the book, as well as to read the Introduction, visit http://www.cis.org/NewCase

Or, to order, go to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595230351/centerforimmigra"

Thanks, 2Pac.

btw, I forgot to mention that Dr. Mubarak is (surprise, surprise)...wait for it...an Obama delegate! You never know what you can find when you google someone's name...:)

I "deliberately lied"

Nothing new under the sun. Muslims will always accuse the Dhimmis to lie......

Muslims don't lie deliberately , they lie constantly . it is a second nature.