I hear there’s rumors on the, uh, Internets that I am refusing to debate various Islamic spokesmen who have challenged what I’ve reported here and in my books about the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism.
This is false. I stand by the words I wrote several years ago here: “I would, of course, be happy to debate any scholar about Islam and jihad; this is a standing invitation.” In reality, several Islamic apologists have recently approached me with challenges to debate, and I’ve told them I’m willing to debate them all — whereupon they all ran as fast as they could in the opposite direction, all the while claiming that I had declined their challenge.
The sticking point in two of these cases was my suggestion that we debate first in print, at FrontPage magazine if they’d be willing to host it — as they have in the past.
I offered this for two reasons: first because my speaking schedule is quite full for the rest of 2007 and the beginning of 2008, so we wouldn’t be able to meet for a face-to-face debate for many months. We could, however, meet in print right away. Also, a print debate tends to lessen the grandstanding, emotional appeals, and playing to the galleries that mar many real-time debates (Dinesh D’Souza, call your office). Readers can evaluate the arguments presented by both sides at their leisure, and the debaters, if they’re wise, will supply more evidence for their points than they have a chance to do when speaking within a time limit.
But this was too much for these stalwart champions, even though I also agreed to meet them face-to-face when it could be arranged: because I asked for a print debate, they ran away, all the while accusing me of ducking them — as is now posted on several Islamic websites. And that made me think that grandstanding, emotional appeals, and playing to the galleries, rather than deal in real evidence, was exactly what they intended to do.
All the more puzzling was the fact that one of the challenges came from an associate of a man who has admitted to me that he thinks an Islamic state should subjugate non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law, relegating them to an inferior status and collecting the jizya from them. Yet his friend wanted to debate me on this topic (which I suggested): “Do the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the hadith, and the Qur’an teach that Muslims must make war against the People of the Book and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law, or not?” He would have been arguing against the idea that the Islamic sources teach dhimmitude — yet his friend had admitted to me that they do teach it.
Similarly, another challenger cheerfully avowed to me that “stoning will remain forever, jihad will remain forever, verses condeming christians and jews and your false faiths will remain forever,” but still wanted to debate me. Since I’m routinely vilified for pointing out that these ideas have sanction in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and that peaceful Muslims must acknowledge this and work toward reform, I don’t know what this man and I would have to debate about. Usually those who want to debate me want to dispute the contention that Islam contains such teachings — which is probably why debate challengers have been thin on the ground until recently: it’s hard to debate in favor of a manifest falsehood. I guess this man and I could debate whether or not these are positive things, since obviously he believes there are, but I am not going to discuss whether putting people to death by stoning or subjugating them under the rule of an alien and draconian law are good things or not. Anyone with a conscience can see that they are not.
Anyway, I am not going to name or link these people, but if you come across someone saying that I have refused to debate, know that the claim is absolutely false.