Muslim scholars in Mumbai challenge Salman Rushdie to debate on Islam

Mumbai is an ironic place for them to make a public stand claiming that Islam is a Religion of Peace, but Islamic supremacists never suffer from any shortages of chutzpah. Anyway, they don’t really want to debate Rushdie so much as interrogate him: “…let us invite Rushdie to this city and answer our questions. If he has the guts he should explain to us why he wrote such a blasphemous book.”

Typical. Islamic supremacists and their Leftists allies almost never agree to a free, open, even-handed debate with someone who genuinely opposes their agenda. It’s as if they’re aware of how flimsy their arguments are, and how easily they could be shown up. The list of Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. who have rejected my invitation to debate has grown very long, and gets longer almost daily. They uniformly say — another indication of how they all work from the same talking points fed to them from higher-ups — that I am too stupid to bother debating, as if the falsity of what I say is self-evident; or that I am too evil to debate, as they don’t want the taint of debating a greasy Islamophobe; or that I am too insignificant to debate, as their stature is so much greater than mine that they don’t want to give me and my views credibility by engaging us in discussion.

These are transparent enough as dodges, but I’ll explain why they’re dodges anyway, in case there is any doubt. I may be very stupid indeed, but since I have two bestselling books, many other popular ones, and a website that gets 25,000 to 30,000 unique visitors a day, demonstrating that stupidity in live action would do a world of good for the purveyors of the “Islamophobia” myth. The same goes for my alleged evil: I may indeed be as terrible a fellow as they say, but that would seem to be all the more reason why it would be imperative for them to try to limit my influence. And they certainly do that, with no fewer than three hate websites now devoted almost completely to character assassination of me and supposed “refutations” of my work — but none of these have any real bite unless they can stand up to rebuttal, and meet and best me in head-on discussion; yet they all clearly fear to do that. Finally, their claim that they’d be giving me credibility by debating me is clearly contrary to logic: if they defeated me, they’d be taking away any credibility I might have — so evidently it is their awareness that they can’t actually defeat me that keeps them from taking up the challenge.

And so we have the spectacle of the stupid, evil, credibility-bereft “Islamophobe” writing reasoned refutations of the deceitful and misleading writings of the likes of Haroon Moghul and Harris Zafar, and in response, their ignoring these refutations entirely or slinging ad hominem smears. They have no interest in genuine, respectful, reasoned dialogue.

The problem with their approach is that anyone who still is interested in reasoned dialogue in our increasingly darkened age can see who is offering evidence and is willing to defend his views, and who is simply shying ad hominem bricks and then hiding behind contemptuous claims to an intellectual superiority that has been neither earned nor demonstrated, but only assumed.

I can understand why men like Zafar and Moghul and all the rest of them fear debating me: they know that what I say is true. And I know that they can’t say that, even if they know it in their heart of hearts. So they come up with excuses and excuses, just as the lion tamer, whip ripped out of hand, grabs the nearest chair to keep the lion at bay. But the lion is the truth, and despite their best efforts, it keeps coming closer, closer, closer.

“Muslim scholars challenge Rushdie to debate on Islam,” by Mohammed Wajihuddin for TNN, January 28:

MUMBAI: A group of scholars who are also members of the powerful All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has invited controversial author Salman Rushdie to debate on Islam and the Prophet’ s life. This is a significant change of position from the general Muslim view which has opposed Rushdie’s visit to India ever since his controversial novel The Satanic Verses created a storm in the 1980s.

The scholars who favour a dialogue with Rushdie were participating in a seminar on Azmat-e-Rasool (the Prophet’s greatness) on Sunday in Mumbai.

Rushdie reportedly wants to visit Mumbai to promote Deepa Mehta-directed movie Midnight’s Children, based on his novel of the same name.

Many at the seminar, organized by Wahdat-e-Islami Hind, an NGO not known for its charitable views on Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen, were surprised when senior lawyer and member of AIMPLB Yusuf Muchala proposed: “Instead of opposing his visit to Mumbai, let us invite Rushdie to this city and answer our questions. If he has the guts he should explain to us why he wrote such a blasphemous book.”

Muchalla, who heads the personal law board’s legal cell, also appealed to the Muslims not to resort to violent protests against Rushdie.

Echoing Muchala, Dr Shakil Samdani, a professor of law at Aligarh Muslim University and a speaker at the Wahdat-e-Islami Hind seminar, told TOI: “Rushdie should listen to the sane voices of the Muslims. Instead of issuing death threats against him and opposing his visit to India, Muslims must try to engage him in an informed debate.”

Wahdat-e-Islami members were among the Muslims who had forced the Rajasthan government to ask Rushdie not to participate in the Jaipur Literary Fest last year. They also forced JLF organizers to cancel Nasreen’s participation this year.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    >”Rushdie should listen to the sane voices of the Muslims. Instead of issuing death threats against him and opposing his visit to India, Muslims must try to engage him in an informed debate.”

    Ah, there are sane voices in Islam, are there??That is a news to everybody!!

    Somebody should tell these so called “scholars” that the sane voices in Islam have already left Islam realizing that it impossible to remain sane in that mentally sick system!!

  2. says

    Those Muslim apologists who challenge people like Salmon Rushdie and Robert Spencer to debate are hypocrites (probably cowards too) from the outset. Here’s why: Such apologists are not threatened with their life for holding the views that they do. By contrast, the Rushdies and Spencers out there are regularly threatened with death for stating publicly what they believe about Islam.

    Shame on ALL Muslims for this double standard. Yeah, all of you. Every last one of you because there’s nothing in Islam that has anything to do with real freedom. Nothing. Look to your warped founder, Muslims, for confirmation of this truth.

    Islam produces obnoxiousness and hypocrisy in many forms. One of the very worst examples of this is the way devout Muslims don’t have to fear death for stating their viewpoints in free societies but those who publicly criticize or mock Islam definitely face death from many Muslims, even in free nations, let alone the desultory, repressive, completely unimpressive Islamic nations that lurk out there as a drag on all of mankind.

    Sick of Islam. Sick of the Koran. Sick of Sharia. Sick of the character of Mohammed. Sick of all Muslims. Sick of dhimmi apologists for Muslims. Sick of all the rot associated with man’s worst religion of all time.

  3. says

    Well, here’s a turn up for the books (what does that mean??)

    The Muslim “scholars” should also invite some of their ex-believers who are also experts in Islam- Shoebat, al-Rasooli, Tawfik Hamid, etc.

    Problem will be the endless babble used to prevent reasoned replies- Islamists are very good at that; strong mediation is essential, with time limits. Really, can they not see the intellectual suicide that awaits them?

  4. says

    Most Mahoundians I have ‘discussed’ Islam with, don’t want to discuss or debate, they want to dictate absolutes…The problem, is that their absolutes are not all that absolute…When you point that out, they fall into apoplexy…Usually they bleed from the ears, from straining so hard…If you see a Mahoundian bleeding from the ears, leave the area immediately and seek cover…

  5. says

    Moderator: Thank you for that opening statement, Mr. Rushdie. Now Mr. Muhammad, you have 2 minutes

    Mr. Muhammad: Reaches down, comes up with Kalashnikov; thumbs safety, points and empties full clip into Rushdie

    Moderator: Mr. Muhammad, you still have 1:45 remaining…

  6. says

    “… Muchalla, who heads the personal law board’s legal cell, also appealed to the Muslims not to resort to violent protests against Rushdie….”

    i don’t remember that the Allah god (unknowable; as imagined)ever advised the Muslim (impoverished souls) to maintain civility when confronting a perceived adversary.

    the SHARIA renders Muchalla’s appeal senseless to aall the brothers down at the mosque

    that fantasm Muhammad (latey contrived) hardly let anyone have his own opinion about anything

  7. says

    There is really no way a sane and civil conversation can be pursued with a muslim. The brainwashing of muslims will take another 1400 years to be reversed. In the meantime we have no choice but fight them with FORCE. Other options, in my opinion, are not available to us unfortunately.

  8. says

    Muslim scholars in Mumbai challenge Salman Rushdie to debate on Islam

    Mumbai is an ironic place for them to make a public stand claiming that Islam is a Religion of Peace, but Islamic supremacists never suffer from any shortages of chutzpah.
    …………………

    Quite so, given the horrific Mumbai Jihad attacks of a few years ago.

    More:

    Anyway, they don’t really want to debate Rushdie so much as interrogate him: “…let us invite Rushdie to this city and answer our questions. If he has the guts he should explain to us why he wrote such a blasphemous book.”
    …………………

    What a surprise. Muslims don’t debate”they just bully. And here is another example.

    Note that they characterize the Satanic Verses as “blasphemous” right from the very beginning.

    More:

    Typical. Islamic supremacists and their Leftists allies almost never agree to a free, open, even-handed debate with someone who genuinely opposes their agenda. It’s as if they’re aware of how flimsy their arguments are, and how easily they could be shown up….
    …………………

    And sometimes they go straight for the death threats. Here is death-threat spewing Muslim supremacist who attempts to backpedal when he weighs in to the threat about half-way down”but when roundly out debated by several Jihad Watch stalwarts, he just returns to issuing death threats:

    “#MyJihad Islamophobes…are blind in hate and frustration. Yes they should be killed”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/myjihad-islamophobesare-blind-in-hate-and-frustration-yes-they-should-be-killed.html

    More:

    The scholars who favour a dialogue with Rushdie were participating in a seminar on Azmat-e-Rasool (the Prophet’s greatness)….
    …………………

    Well, *they* certainly sound as though they would be open-minded to criticism of Muhammed…sarc/off

    More:

    Many at the seminar, organized by Wahdat-e-Islami Hind, an NGO not known for its charitable views on Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen, were surprised when senior lawyer and member of AIMPLB Yusuf Muchala proposed: “Instead of opposing his visit to Mumbai, let us invite Rushdie to this city and answer our questions. If he has the guts he should explain to us why he wrote such a blasphemous book.”
    …………………

    “If he has the guts””very, very common among Muslim supremacists”the idea that any critic of Islam isn’t “brave” unless he exposes his throat to a ravening Muslim mob. What crap.

    More:

    Echoing Muchala, Dr Shakil Samdani, a professor of law at Aligarh Muslim University and a speaker at the Wahdat-e-Islami Hind seminar, told TOI: “Rushdie should listen to the sane voices of the Muslims.
    …………………

    Here’s the not-so-good doctor, claiming that Jihad terror really isn’t terrorism at all, but just freedom fighting, and claiming that the free West has “enslaved whole Africa, Asia and Latin America”:

    “Muslims and Terrorism: Buried Truth”

    http://www.radianceweekly.com/72/859/peace-in-peril/2007-08-19/cover-story/story-detail/muslims-and-terrorism-buried-truth.html

    He also refers to the “alleged attack” on the World Trade Center”as though the Twin Towers were still standing, and almost 3,000 people didn’t die there.

    And here he is on crushing freedom of speech:

    “Freedom of Expression or Licence to Hurt?
    An Analysis of Taslima Nasrin Episode”

    http://www.radianceweekly.com/79/1105/justice-and-the-world-today/2007-10-14/frankly-speaking/story-detail/freedom-of-expression-or-licence-to-hurt-an-analysis-of-taslima-nasrin-episode.html

    He refers to Taslim Nasrin, who fled Bangladesh because of the threats to her life, as having “absconding from her native country since 1994″. If he regards fleeing death as wrong, that says little for any safety Salman Rushdie would enjoy in his presence.

    He also claims that freedom of speech is void if it “hurts the sentiments of any community”. In other words, there can be *no* freedom of speech when it comes to Islam.

    And notice: he regards Taslima Nasrin’s words as ‘hurtful’, but the threats to imprison and murder her, apparently, are not.

    He also calls for Nasrin to be deported to Bangladesh, and claims that the only reason this hasn’t happened is because Bangladesh is not strong enough to threaten India into doing so. *Ugh*.

  9. says

    When Muslims “debate” non-Muslims publicly, they have a gun to the head of the non-Muslim. The “gun” in question can take various manifestations: an angry mob that is ready to let loose at any moment; a lone assassin; a “moderate” Muslim who suddenly snaps and becomes murderously violent; an Islamic court that is ready to issue a death sentence for the crime of debating against Islam; Muslim police officers who are ready to arrest the non-Muslim for blasphemy and sedition, etc.

    If you enter a public debate with a Muslim and argue against Islam and Muhammad, you will have in effect a death threat against you for your entire life.

    Good thing Muslims like to debate fairly and let the evidence and arguments determine the outcome– “argue in a way that is better” and so forth–right?

  10. says

    It’s eerie that they have the chutzpah to actually make such a challenge, in the face of one of the most horrific, evil, slaugtering events against all others occurring several yrs ago in mumbai. How is it that the public in Mumbai doesn’t laugh and sneeringly howl at the pretension, hypocrisy, and self deception disorder they demonstrate making such a claim in that city. There, some 167 or so were slaughtering in the public square, two religious people, minding their own businesses were disembowled, one an 8 month pregnant jewish wife of a rabbi, had her embryo carved out of her, her husband, the rabbi, had his testicles and all cut off his body before he was slaughtered.
    And the hundreds wounded, all testament to the slaughtering prophet of doom, who commanded such actions as holy. And yet, they fear no such reaction from the population there.

  11. says

    Said the Muslim professor: ” If he has the guts he should explain to us why he wrote such a blasphemous book.”

    He condemned Mr Rushdie to death by that statement, and he expects him to turn up for the discussion?

  12. says

    Typo correction:

    The problem with all Muslims is they find the truth about Mo, Islam,Quran and Muslims always “blasphemous”. The fact is they are the ones who are blasphemous to entire humanity!!! They always hide behind the veil of fake blasphemy and then nobody can question them!!!

  13. says

    As soon as i read this in my morning paper, that was my first thought too : Salman Rushdie has been invited so that someone in the audience will kill him and everyone on the dais will wring their hands and again proclaim, “How did this happen? islam is a religion of peace. The person who murdered this man is a misunderstander of islam.” And in private they will clap each other on their backs for a job well done.
    The author should not be lured.
    A debate on Shype would work well, though.

  14. says

    Note it’s not a singular mano i mano they want but a mob against one man.

    I’ve experienced this myself when attempting to debate with muslims.

    One kicks off a completely incoherent standpoint which avoids all rationality, rather it relies on an unspoken assumption of their superiority.

    Then the rest join in.

    The voices raise, the anger builds and the incoherence escalates to a crescendo of bedlam where fact is reduced to abstract and dogma raised to absolute truth.

    In the end there’s no point. It’s akin to a conversation in the chimpanzee house.

  15. says

    Dear robert.
    I love your site for i have been greatly educated by it.
    I also have learned that just yelling atmuslims isnt the answer..
    Its the same thing as yeling at liberals.. they just dont get it..

    But i also know that somethings in the bible are not fully explained .. (we see through a glass darkly.) saint paul said..

    But i also know without a doubt one thing.
    If God (the definition of God) is all powerful, all wise , all knowing..
    Well then
    a. cant God defend himself
    b. if allah is god (no way) how come he doesnt seem to know how the solar system works.
    c. cant God PROVE himself?

    I mean come on here
    Either God exists or he doesnt
    you cant have 14 million gods running around
    you cant have a so called god not knowing
    what the heck he is doing.. Kinda defeats the definition of a (cough) so called god…

    I believe the bible because its the only thing that logically and morally makes sense..

    But i also believe it because God could have killed me but instead choose to love me..

    So how come all of the muslims dont have this same kind of resting faith..
    I am just asking and sorry for being so long wind’d

    jdc

  16. says

    “Rushdie should listen to the sane voices of the Muslims.”

    How can he when ISLAM IS ONE VAST INSANE ASYLUM whose inmates are deranged by a superiority complex inspired by a mass murdering terrorist thug disguised as a prophet entitled by God to absolute power over men? As all critics of Islam are blasphemers deserving of imprisonment, torture or death debating with believers about their faith is often an inquisition or trial by fire to warn you of your horrible fate in this life and the next.

  17. says

    aynrandgirl wrote:

    Am I the only person who thinks that this “invitation” is in fact a trap, a ruse to deliver Rushdie to where they can assassinate him?
    ………….

    No, you’re not.

    And good to see you posting again, aynrandgirl.

  18. says

    I thought that too (that is, that this ‘invitation’ is a trap).

    when I read the article, the words ‘come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly’ popped into my mind straightaway.

  19. says

    The problem with all Muslims is they the truth about Mo, Islam,Quran and Muslims always “blasphemous”. The fact is they are the ones who are blasphemous to entire humanity!!! They always hide behind the veil of blasphemy and then nobody can question them!!!

  20. says

    CORRECTION: As all critics of Islam are blasphemers deserving of imprisonment, torture or death debating with believers about their faith often BECOMES an inquisition or trial by fire to warn you of your horrible fate in this life and the next.

  21. says

    Beautiful JDC.

    Freedom,humanism,solidarity and prosperity. These are not things which should have blocades by the religion and certainly they are bigger than the division of being a rightwing,or a leftist. Till recently ththere were religions incouragening the cannibalism and nowadays their place is taken by Islam.
    Wish all the best to Bobbie and happy10th ANIVERSERY of this web site.