Robert Spencer: Debating Islamic supremacists

Over at Atlas Shrugs I explain yet again how Islamic supremacists refuse to debate or defend the claims they insist upon with such arrogance:

TNN
reported Monday that “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.”

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.

BBC cuts lines from honor killing drama in order to avoid offending Muslims
Egypt: Death penalties for Muhammad filmmakers upheld
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    I am not as equipped to debate Mahoundians as Robert, but the Mahoundians I have debated were not equipped to debate me…They are long on bravado, short of facts and credibility…

    I also notice the steep decline of Mahoundians showing up on JW to debate or just clown around…The few that do are probably the 10% that didn’t get the memo…

  2. says

    It is not surprising that Islamic supremacists refuse to debate or defend Islam. How could one possibly defend Islam’s canonical texts and Muhammad’s insane and inhumane behaviour.

    We ex-Muslims living with Islam’s formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know that the cruel cult of Mohammedanism is a fraud.

    Islam means divine sanction for the following >

    Rape (Qur’an, 4:24)

    Child molestation (65:4) and

    Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Vol.7, Bk.62, No.88:

    Narrated Ursa:
    The prophet wrote the [marriage contract] with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e.’ til his death).

    Lashing for unmarried adulterers (Quran 24:2)

    Stoning for married adulterers:

    Sahih Bukhari, Vol.8, Bk.82, No.826:

    Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:
    Two men had a dispute in the presence of Allah’s Apostle. One of them said, “Judge us according to Allah’s Laws.” The other who was more wise said, “Yes, Allah’s Apostle, judge us according to Allah’s Laws and allow me to speak (first)” The Prophet said to him, ‘Speak ” He said, “My son was a laborer for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and the people told me that my son should be stoned to death, but I have given one-hundred sheep and a slave girl as a ransom (expiation) for my son’s sin. Then I asked the religious learned people (about It), and they told me that my son should he flogged one-hundred stripes and should be exiled for one year, and only the wife of this man should be stoned to death ” Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to Allah’s Laws: O man, as for your sheep and slave girl, they are to be returned to you.” Then the Prophet had the man’s son flogged one hundred stripes and exiled for one year, and ordered Unais Al-Aslami to go to the wife of the other man, and if she confessed, stone her to death. She confessed and was stoned to death.