• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Hugh Fitzgerald: Islam and the Propaganda War (Part II): The Debater’s Handbook

Feb 11, 2017 7:16 am By Hugh Fitzgerald

In Part I, I reviewed the propaganda war conducted by the American government during the Cold War, and lamented the lack of such a campaign against the forces of Jihad today. I discussed the need to reprint in full, and with a critical commentary appended, the Qur’an, and also to print intelligently abridged versions of the Hadith and Sira, again with critical commentaries appended, all for free mass distribution. I noted how important it was to have these works translated into a dozen of the major world languages and a half-dozen of the major languages of Islam, and to disseminate these texts not only through print publication (as was done during the Cold War), but also, and mainly, by posting them online, where they could be viewed by tens of millions of people. And I suggested reprinting another set of texts, by ex-Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq, able to offer from the inside a critical view of Islam’s curious appeal. I discussed the continuing problem of why this hadn’t yet been done, because governments are chary of paying for such campaigns, fearful of being charged with Islamophobia (look at the hysterical savaging of the Trump Administration over the so-called “Muslim ban”), and why, therefore, private parties now have to do what, in a more self-confident and less confused age, would be done, straightforwardly, by the government.

Another part of this privately-funded effort to undermine the appeal of Islam — see Part I here — should be the training of a cadre of speakers well-prepared to take on, in a debate setting, the small army of Islamic apologists already deployed in this country: a cadre of well-trained people to whom we entrust the task of How To Debate A Muslim. The need for this training is great, given the widespread and systematic campaigns of Muslim apologists, especially on college campuses, and at mosques, where every week brings fresh news of outreach efforts to the non-Muslims who visit these mosques, mostly unwary innocents eager to Visit A Mosque, or Ask A Muslim Anything, or just Meet Their Muslim Neighbors, who will, of course, be just as accommodating and welcoming as all get-out.

These debaters willing to take upon themselves this important task, to attend these Mosque-and-Muslim Outreach affairs, not because they know nothing about Islam, but because they know a good deal, know perfectly well what is going on in this smilingly sinister meet-and-greet, and would like to upset the propaganda applecart before it become a juggernaut, deserve help. It may, for example, be useful for such people to have been given guidance as to which Qur’anic passages, especially those on violent Jihad and treatment of Infidels, are most telling in painting a true picture of Islam. Or a list of those Qur’anic quotes always relied on by apologists – as 2:256 and 5:32 and 109:1-6 – and how to answer them, might be supplied in advance. And then they might be given a short list of stories in the Hadith, about the very episodes in Muhammad’s life that Muslim apologists will most wish to avoid, and that can most effectively unsettle the Muslim speaker(s). And these stories will create unease, too, but of a different kind, among the non-Muslims visiting the mosque who are now confronted not with feelgood mental pabulum, but a real conflict, one that suggests all is not right with Islam. These Infidels will be hearing from this prepared cadre of anti-Islam speakers about aspects of Islam and of Muhammad that are rooted in the texts, cannot be convincingly explained away, and are deeply disturbing.

What is needed is something like a debater’s bootcamp, real or virtual, to supply those who want to prepare for such debates the most useful material (the Jihad passages in the Qur’an, the least attractive aspects of Muhammad’s life, from the Hadith and Sira) and to guide Infidels in how most effectively to marshal their arguments and evidence, so as not merely to hold one’s own against any apologist for Islam, but to demolish that apologist’s predictable defenses. This requires a basic knowledge of Islam, and an ability to deploy a few dozen passages from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, in a convincing and winning manner. Some knowledge of the history of Islamic conquest, and of what happened to the many peoples subjugated by Muslim conquerors — who was killed, who converted, and who survived under what onerous conditions – should also be learned, and made quickly retrievable from a Smartphone, for use in a debate. Imagine the effect, for example, of being able to quote the Indian historian K. S. Lal on the tens of millions of Hindus killed in India under Muslim rule. Anyone who has heard Muslims defending the faith knows that the apologists keep going back to the same handful of arguments (the supposed need to know Arabic, the necessity of understanding violence in its “context,” Muhammad as “empowering” women), keep quoting the same misleading verses – e.g., 2:56, 5:32 without 5:33 – and keep insisting, wrongly, that the most disturbing passages are descriptive rather than prescriptive, that is, they try to argue that the most violent of verses are limited to the time and place of their original application. Non-Muslims can anticipate which passages and off-the-rack arguments will be used, and should be ready to respond with their own stock of selected texts that show Islam in quite another light. The series of mock debates with someone taking the role of a Muslim defending the faith, and using the same arguments and evasions that real Muslims do, will help polish the debater’s presentation.

Let’s run through some of the standard Muslim claims. First, there is the attempt to disqualify non-Muslims from discussing the texts in the first place because “you have to know Arabic to really understand the Qur’an.” Your reply is ready in the form of an obvious question: “80% of the world’s Muslims are not Arabs; very few of them know Arabic; aren’t they real Muslims? Are you suggesting that they don’t understand the Qur’an?” For this there is no plausible retort. Next is the usual business about Islamic texts being taken “out of context.” The debater must be prepared to explain how and why many of those 109 “Jihad verses” are not descriptive, as is the violence in the Old Testament, but prescriptive, that is meant to be applicable for all time. As Robert Spencer has noted, there are no Christian and Jewish groups around the world plotting murder and mayhem based on Biblical texts, the way Muslim groups are doing, basing their terror squarely on chapter-and-verse in the Qur’an. Transcripts of their statements or, even better, videos, of Muslim terrorists citing Islamic texts as prompting their actions, could be brought to debates, to be played on a laptop or a larger screen, with the killers gleefully describing how those texts prompted their gruesome killings — difficult to explain, impossible to defend.

Then there are two Qur’anic passages that more than any others are constantly quoted by Defenders of the Faith, and for which any Debater should be prepared. The first is 5:32 without its modifying 5:33. 5:32 says that “whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” This verse, lifted from the Jewish text of the Mishnah, sounds good. But it is the verse that immediately follows – 5:33 — that prescribes rather than proscribes killing, turning 5:32 upside down: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.” Who “makes war upon Allah and His messenger”? It’s the non-Muslims, of course, and it is they who should be “killed or crucified.” Both Presidents Bush and Obama respectfully quoted 5:32 to show the pacific nature of Islam; neither quoted 5:33. Were they attempting to mislead the public, or was it that they themselves were misled by their advisers on Islam whom, I suspect, were Muslims themselves, happy to supply them with apposite quotes to show that “Islam-means-peace”?

The other Qur’anic passage always quoted by Muslim apologists is 2:256: “There is no compulsion in religion.” But of course in Islam there is “compulsion in religion.” The compulsion is both for Muslims and for non-Muslims. For Muslims, there is the fear that keeps those who might want to leave the faith from doing so, for apostasy is punishable by death. Is that constant threat of death not the most extreme sort of “compulsion”? As for non-Muslims under Muslim rule, the stark choice offered them is either to convert to Islam, or be killed, or remain alive but be forced to pay a burdensome capitation tax, the Jizyah, as well as endure certain other disabilities. Doesn’t that kind of choice constitute “compulsion in religion”? Either you convert, or you die, or you pay an annual tax that can be crushing. You should bring home to your audience what this means in practice. How many of us, if we had to pay, say, $50,000 a year to Muslim rulers in order to remain Christians or Jews, would not, over time, decide in the end to convert? Wasn’t this exactly what happened in the lands that Muslims conquered, where many converted to avoid the Jizyah? That takes care of 5:32 and 2:256.

There are also quotes from the Qur’an that Muslim apologists use, knowing full well that Infidels will misinterpret them. When Muhammad says in Qur’an 109:1-6, “For you is your religion and for us is our religion,” this sounds good to Infidels: we will leave each other alone. That, of course, is preposterous, as we know, because Islam is determined never to leave Infidels alone, not until they surrender and choose death, conversion, or life as a Jizyah-paying dhimmi. The commentators on Qur’an 109 have written this: “When read in context, like many other verses misinterpreted for apologetic purposes, surat al-Kafiroon advocates the opposite of what is sometimes claimed. This surah is not a proclamation on religious tolerance and freedom or a recognition of religious pluralism. In fact, this surah unequivocally forbids inter-faith dialogue, expresses Muslims’ ‘total disgust’ of non-Islamic beliefs and advocates an ‘us versus them’ mentality between Muslims and disbelievers. This is how the surah is understood by mainstream Islam and the majority of its classical and contemporary scholars. Furthermore, if the historical context were to be ignored, it would still remain an abrogated verse superseded by ‘the verses of fighting.’ The verse means that ‘for us (Muslims) our (true) religion, for you – all the Unbelievers, who share the same falsity of belief – your (false) religion.’”

Another principle that needs to be clearly understood by debaters and explained to audiences is that of naskh, or “abrogation.” There are many passages in the Qur’an that are inconsistent with one another, and Muslims are taught that it is the later verses that “abrogate” (“naskh” literally means “removal”) the earlier ones. Why does this matter so much? It turns out that the earlier verses, which date from Muhammad’s time in Mecca, when he still had powerful enemies, and therefore had to be more accommodating, are “softer” and more “peaceful” toward the Infidels. So it is precisely these verses that apologists for Islam will quote. The audience of Infidels will most likely be unaware that the later verses, which are much harsher than those from the Meccan period, are held to “abrogate” the earlier ones, and come from the period when he ruled the city of Medina (Yathrib), was much more powerful than he had been in Mecca, and could now afford to be more severe with his enemies. The prepared debater will come armed with this understanding, explain it to the audience, and offer some examples of such abrogation. For example, Qur’an 9:5, the Verse of the Sword (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”), is held by Muslims to have “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” And once again we can undermine the Muslim apologist’s reliance on Qur’an 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) which, as we have seen, mischaracterizes reality under Islam (ignoring the would-be apostate’s death sentence and the non-Muslim’s duty to pay the Jizyah, both forms of “compulsion”), by noting that 2:256 is also an earlier verse held to have been abrogated by many later verses from the “Meccan” period. Just a few such examples will be enough to discomfit your Muslim opponent, and shake the audience’s trust in his assertions.

What else should the debater on Islam ideally be ready to discuss? He should be ready to ask about not only what is written in the Qur’an and Hadith, but how Islam has been practiced, that is, how Muslims have behaved over 1400 years, as they conquered many lands and subjugated many peoples.

In the question period you should start disingenuously:

“I’ve been studying the Qur’an on my own, and I just had a question or two.”

“Oh, very good. It’s always advisable to have a Muslim help guide you through the more difficult passages. It’s not all simple, some people have been known to misinterpret. Obviously those Islamic State crazies have been the worst misinterpreters of the texts. I wouldn’t even call them Muslims. By all means, fire away.” (The Muslim speaker is hoping that you haven’t come across any of those unpleasant passages, and just called into question, in advance, your own understanding of the text — “difficult passages” that “some people have been known to misinterpret” — just in case.)

“Well, there’s this one verse I read — Qur’an 98.6 — that calls disbelievers ‘the vilest of creatures.’ I don’t know what to think of that.”

“There are some other words you’ve left out. I think it says ‘some people may think Infidels are the vilest of creatures.’ There’s quite a difference there. Besides, I’m pretty sure that’s one of the passages that was abrogated. So it doesn’t apply any more.” (Pouring on the taqiyya)

“Well, I just want to know if it means that some Muslims thought at that time that we non-Muslims were ‘the vilest of creatures.’ Who are the ‘disbelievers’?”

“Oh, the ‘disbelievers’ are the pagans. Pagan Arabs. Nothing to do with Christians or Jews, so don’t worry about it. Unless of course you are a pagan Arab and the year is 630 A.D.” (Nervous laughter from Muslims in the audience)

“Well, are you sure ‘disbelievers’ doesn’t mean all non-Muslims? I read that somewhere. And there’s another verse that I wonder about – Qur’an 3.110 – that calls Muslims the ‘best of peoples.’ What should I think of that?”

“Well, that just goes to show how easy it is to misunderstand some of these verses. Remember, you don’t know the Arabic original. You don’t know the context. Tell me, do you think all the Muslims here tonight really believe that the people we invited and who accepted our invitations are the – how did you put it? – the “vilest of creatures”? Do you think that’s what I think of you? Of course not. Did you talk to a Muslim about these verses? Do you really think we Muslims think ‘we are the best of peoples’? That would be utter nonsense.. You know, these things shouldn’t always be taken literally. There are whole libraries of Qur’anic commentaries that need to be consulted. It’s not that simple.”

Don’t be dissuaded. Keep up the questions, despite the taqiyya. Ask about what happens to apostates in Islam, about why the Jiyzah must be paid, about what the Qur’an says about Muslims taking non-Muslims as friends. Ask about little Aisha, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, the Khaybar raid, the decapitations of 600-900 prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. Just raising these topics will cause your speaker’s suave assurance to deliquesce into ill-concealed anger, which is the result you want.

Slavery is one subject to bring up as early as possible.

The back-and-forth might go something like this, beginning with your loaded question:

“Did Muhammad buy and sell slaves?”

“Yes. Almost everyone did it in those days.”

“Didn’t the Islamic slave trade begin earlier, end later, and claim tens of millions more victims, than the Atlantic slave trade?”

“I don’t know. That’s the first I’ve heard of that. I’ll have to check.”’

“Well, I’ve done some research on this, especially about the castrating, by Arab slavers, of black African boys in the bush, only 20% of whom survived both the operation, and the trip by slave coffle and dhow to the great Islamic slave markets. They were used as eunuchs. Just think – only 20% survived.” (Gasp from the audience)

(Deeply disturbed that you’ve been doing research) “Again, I’d like to check your facts. Of course, you know that Muhammad freed over 60 of his slaves. And he told his followers to treat their slaves kindly. He really was ahead of his time.” (A weak reply.)

“Yes, I’d read that. But he never attacked the institution of slavery. And if you want to check about the castration business, you might want to begin with a book I’ve just read — The Hideous Trade by Jan Hogedorn. That’s H-o-g-e-d-o-r-n. I hope you” – turning to audience – “will all have a chance to take a look.” (Sound of inputting into smartphones) “And one more thing — if Muhammad is the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct, doesn’t that mean that whatever he did, including owning slaves, is justified?”

“It’s complicated. I’m not sure why you keep coming back to this. Look, lots of people had slaves then, and no one has slaves today. So what’s your point? Can we go on to something else? I’d planned to talk about the things we can do together, as communities of faith– such as the Coat Drive for the Homeless. Raising funds to buy the hospital a new scanner.”

“I just want to be sure that I understand: because Muhammad owned slaves, slavery was legitimized in Islam. For all time. Isn’t that right? There was no anti-slavery movement in Islam, no Muslim William Wilberforce. Slavery continued to be legal in Saudi Arabia and Yemen until 1962, and was banned only because of terrific Western pressure. Black slaves were still held by Arabs in the northern Sudan until recently, and are held even now in Mauritania.” (Audible gasps, again, of surprise.)

“Well, again, I’d have to check your facts. I think you’re mixing up a lot of things. Apples and oranges. And what’s past is past.”

“Fine. Just google ‘slavery in the Arab world.’” (Many in the audience now input this.)

“I think we should get onto some other subject – we’ve used up enough time about something that doesn’t even exist any more. I mean, should I go to your president’s press conference and ask him about slavery?”

“Well, there is a difference, but let me ask another question. It’s about Aisha.” (Subdued fury in the face of your Muslim interlocutor.)

“Yes, she was Muhammad’s wife. They loved each other very much.”

“And how old was she when they married?”

“I don’t see what that has to do with Islam – I mean it’s not even in the Qur’an, or didn’t you know that? But of course they married – she was a young woman — only when she had reached puberty. Most of his wives were widows, whom he wanted to support.”

And then as the well-prepared debater, you let the taqiyya artist have it with both barrels. You announce that she was betrothed to Muhammad when she was six, and that he consummated his marriage – to be clear, Muhammad had sex with Aisha– when he was in his mid-50s and she was nine. (Gasps from many in the audience). And the main point you make is this: as Muslims regard Muhammad as the Perfect Man, the Model of Conduct, the True Believers continue to think it permissible to marry a girl as young as nine. They don’t “contextualize.” In other words, what happened 1400 years ago is still valid today.

“You’ve got your facts all wrong.”

“Do I? When Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, he lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine. Coincidence?”

“I don’t know what Khomeini did and I don’t care. He’s a Shi’a. If you want to find out what the Shi’a do, go to their meetings.” (Laughter from the audience). “I don’t know of a single Muslim country where a girl can be married at nine.”

“What about those photographs of child-brides in Afghanistan with their middle-aged husbands? Or in Pakistan? Anything to do with emulating Muhammad? And what about Saudi Arabia? How old does a girl have to be to get married there? There is no minimum age in Saudi Arabia.”

“I think what you are doing is pure Islamophobia, plain and simple. You don’t get any of your facts right. You didn’t come here to meet and talk with Muslims in good faith. You’re just here to make trouble. You should think about the others who came to learn about Islam.”

“I’ll leave it to the audience to do their own research on Aisha. Just google ‘Aisha’ and ‘Muhammad.’” (Sounds of audience members inputting both names into smartphones)

Those two topics – the Arab slave trade and Muhammad’s marriage to little Aisha, should be quite enough to spoil your Muslim debater’s evening.

But if there is time for more, then you might ask about what happened, and why, to Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak:

“One last question. Do you remember what Asma bint Marwan did?”

“She wrote terrible, vile, disrespectful verses.”

“And what happened to her?”

“She was punished for mocking. She made fun of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).”

“Made fun?”

“Yes. So one of the Muslims decided to punish her.”

“Oh really? It wasn’t just ‘punishment,’ was it? He decided to kill her, just because she made fun of someone.”

“Not just anyone. The Prophet Muhammad. It is not permitted to make fun of him. It is blasphemy. You would want to do the same if someone made fun of Jesus.” (Sounds of doubt from the audience).

“Actually, no. I might not like it, but I’d never want to kill someone for making fun of Jesus. People make fun of Jesus all the time, and many of us find it in bad taste, but no one is killed for that.”

“I don’t believe you. I don’t think Christians would allow Jesus to be mocked that way. And if they did, they wouldn’t be very good Christians to permit such disrespect. We Muslims would never allow anyone to blaspheme the Prophet (pbuh).”

“Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a failure to communicate.”

“Can we please get onto something more important”?

“I think Muhammad’s marrying a nine-year-old is serious. I think Muhammad’s taking pleasure in someone’s murder is serious.” Point, set, match.

Such discussions need not be formally requested by non-Muslims, as part of Mosque Open Houses, or Meet-Your-Muslim-Neighbors events. In the question period that will follow the presentation by a Muslim speaker, you can turn it into a real debate merely by asking probing questions on the most sensitive matters. Ask about apostates in Islam, about why the Jiyzah must be paid, about what the Qur’an says about Muslims taking non-Muslims as friends. Ask about Aisha, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, the Khaybar raid, the decapitations of 600-900 prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. Just raising these topics will cause your speaker’s mask to fall and his suave assurance to decompose into ill-concealed anger.

“Are you done? I think we all see where you are coming from. Believe me, I’ll be happy to talk to you about this for as long as you like, but I really don’t think it fair to take up everybody’s time when they came to learn the really important things about Islam. For example, how many people know that we Muslims respect Jesus as a prophet? Or that we revere Mary as the greatest of all women? Do you know – do you even care – that Mary is mentioned 70 times in the Qur’an, which is more than she is mentioned in the New Testament? No, I didn’t think so. But despite what you’ve attempted here tonight, I will be happy to meet with you and discuss the things on which we can agree or at least agree to disagree. Just make an appointment and we can discuss these things, but, as we Muslims prefer, in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Enough Islamophobia. Remember, we are all children of Allah. Fortunately, given the terrible things we’ve seen recently – that unbelievably cruel ban on Muslims, which none of us ever expected to see in our country – I’m not surprised that so many of my Christian and Jewish friends have told me ‘we are all Muslims now.’ We are deeply grateful to all of you for your support and for coming here tonight. And I’d love to continue the discussion. But right now, we don’t want the dinner Mrs. Al-Bazzazz has laid out for us to get cold. So let’s not keep her waiting.”

Sound of people getting up from their seats, hastening to a table laden with curried chicken, lamb kebabs, basmati rice, hot pita bread, baklava, fruit juices and water. Everyone has moved on from the Qur’an, the Hadith, slavery, Aisha, Asma bint Marwan.

This interchange, or one very like it, ought to be easy to arrange at Mosque Open Houses and Meet-Your-Muslim-Neighbors nights. All you must do is have at the ready on your smartphone a few dozen Qur’anic quotes and a few dozen Hadith, and a willingness to speak out, to enable you to disrupt the proceedings from going as the Muslim hosts had planned.

Given crowd psychology, it might be good to go with a friend or two, also well-prepared, and able both to support your questioning or, should you be silenced, to pick up the baton and ask the questions you did not get to ask. A single critical questioner may be depicted by annoyed Muslims as a lonely crank, but two or three people echoing one another’s dissents can, under the circumstances, constitute a multitude. Your aim is to cause visible anxiety to the Muslim speaker, to rattle him, to make the audience begin to question the sanitized version of Islam he was hoping to present to his audience without any cross-questioning. The less the visiting Infidels know, the better for him and his scripted bonhomie. Your job is to make that audience, simply by showing that you do know something about Islam that has not been part of the smooth presentation they’ve just been given, to start to mistrust the taqiyya-artist. The truth is on your side and, ideally, if unafraid to give offense, you will both unsettle the speaker and send your fellow Infidels home, not necessarily on your side, but at least no longer certain what to think, and determined to look up some of the passages, from the Qur’an and Hadith, that you mentioned for their benefit. And if thousands of skilled debaters become involved, spreading uncertainty about Islam among Infidels who had previously been perceived as easy prey by Muslim propagandists, this can throw a spanner in the works of those apologists who are now lying in smiling, because unopposed, wait, in mosques all over this country. That would constitute a victory.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Hugh Fitzgerald, Taqiyya, War is deceit Tagged With: Aisha, Asma bint Marwan


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Angemon says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 7:39 am

    Non-Muslims can anticipate which passages and off-the-rack arguments will be used, and should be ready to respond with their own stock of selected texts that show Islam in quite another light.

    Or, better yet, pre-emptively rebut them. “9:29 commands muslims to wage war against non-muslims until they convert or pay the jizyiah, a poll-tax that non-muslims were forced to pay in order to keep their lives. Islamic apologists like to quote, for example, 2:256 to prove there’s no compulsion in religion but mainstream islamic quran commentators agree that 2:256 was meant for a specific time, place and situation, when muslims were a weak minority that couldn’t win in a physical confrontation, and that’s been abrogated by 9:5 and 9:29, which, chronologically speaking, were revealed after 2:256 and at a time when muhammad was the leader or an army thousands strong.”

  2. FYI says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 7:54 am

    The sign is quite mistaken.As usual it is the islamic misrepresentation of the Truth.

    1)The One God is the Biblical version NOT the islamic caricature.

    2)the islamic concept of a prophet is NOT the same as the Judeo-Christian concept of a prophet.
    If mahomet was a true prophet of God then he would not have contradicted Jesus Christ or failed to promote the Commandments by his life and example(Sunnah).

    3)the koran rejects Jesus Christ and the Trinity so the Islamic allah is NOT the same as the Judeo-Christian revelation of God in the Bible.

    4)the koranic teachings are often completely at odds with God’s commandments “(slay the unbeliever” of k2:191 versus The Sixth Commandment etc).For some reasons muslims cannot see the conflict between their koran and God’s commandments.

    5)The well known dissembling techniques used by muslims[taqqiya,tawriya,kitman etc}should not fool those familiar with the islamic tendency to violate the Ninth Commandment.

    6)muslims do not understand that a prophet cannot encourage the breaking of God’s commandments
    or would dispute anything Jesus Christ said.Of course every muslim soul will be judged by Jesus Christ..not by their “allah” as they imagine …which will come as a big shock to those who are anti-Semitic or anti-Christian….

    7)mahomet famously hated the Jews but ALL GODs prophets…Moses,Elijah,Jesus are Jewish.
    What would those muslim clergymen say to this command to violate God’s Sixth commandment and kill somebody for being Jewish?What if it was Moses,Elijah,Jesus..?

    “Oh Muslim!There is a Jew hiding behind me.Kill him”
    sahih al bukhari 4:52:177

    • beaubear says

      Feb 12, 2017 at 7:24 pm

      of course it’s wrong, the sign should be Abraham , Issac and Jacob, and Jesus Christ is the Son
      of God, who lived died , and rose again, Mohammad is still dead, and he’s not coming back, nor
      is he w/ 72 virgins. he was a twisted sick man

  3. john spielman says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 8:23 am

    ANOTHER excellent article by Mr Fitzgerald! This should be mandatory reading in any ‘comparative religion course in high schools universities! Either Hugh or Robert Spencer should be the special advisors to President Trump!

    muslims insist that islam is “another Abrahamic ” religion, when nothing is further from the truth! Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism for the world- as Jesus is the awaited messiah of the Jews ( though some Jews may disagree with this assertion) and the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies.
    islam on the other hand has NO historic basis going back to the Abrahamic times( except the Arabs are the descendents of Ishmael ). The Arabs of muhammad’s time were all polytheists as even muhammad testified. There is no history of monotheism among the Arabs until muhammed invented his religion based on the revelations of Satan masquerading as Gabriel an angel of God!

    • Mark Swan says

      Feb 11, 2017 at 5:17 pm

      What I have tried to demonstrate here is the obscured claim that Muslims have to any legitimacy at all.

      Son of man, when a land sins against Me by persistent unfaithfulness, I will stretch out My hand against it—

      —even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, says the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness. (Ezekiel 14: 13,20)

      So when the Muslim claim Ishmael as their connection to Abraham—let them hear this, and consider it—

      Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said: ‘By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—

      blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice’”

      That Only Son Was Isaac—-God does not recognize Any Other Son—NONE.

      When Hagar and Ishmael showed contempt for Sarah and Isaac—Sarah told Abraham to send them both away—God agreed by saying do not worry about the child—not recognizing him as a legitimate son of Abraham—what God did was show no other claims to the bloodline was possible—absolutely none.

      The same genealogy of Christ—the line of descent from an ancestor or earlier form, especially that of a specific person or family—

      A Royal Blood line came from this genealogy—So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

      Mary His Mother and Her Husband Joseph were of this blood line.

      This may not mean much to carnal man—but it is what GOD thinks that matters.

      No one can steal their way into any of this.

      God has a master plan in place, which can not be altered from accomplishing what He wants.

  4. friend of GOD says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 8:37 am

    tube documentary green prince,,,,,,,,,,,complete understanding of government of islam

  5. jewdog says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 8:40 am

    When it comes to local Muslim outreach programs, I practice 109:1-6 and leave them to their religion by staying home. I’d rather debate my cat.

    • beyondculturewars says

      Feb 11, 2017 at 8:59 am

      I once got hooked into a theological discussion online before I knew it with a muslim…….I started with ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’ and when I was done, he cancelled his account and all his anti-jewish, anti-christian rants……

      I left my side of the argument up, and it’s very clear what his responses were to my questions.

      All I can say, it helps to be prepared.

    • Mark Swan says

      Feb 11, 2017 at 5:05 pm

      Muslims being those who have the Quran for a source of morality, know it says they can lie.

      Those who have read the Quran, know the intent of Islam is about control, nothing less, and all of its followers, know that they are required to wage Jihad on all those that are not Muslim, plainly written in
      the Quran.

      Muslims can not let up on Jihad until everyone is conquered by Islam.

      No one can take Islam lightly; we are talking of a very organized and real centuries old movement, that
      has always had its heart set on conquering the world, with real resources, determination, many allies and perceived opportunity now supporting it.

      So even though only a few hundred million admit they support Jihad, ok, now you can go ahead and aknowledge the lying factor, and realize this is a tremendous movement.

      We here know Islam and its intent for power makes it an insurgency prepared under the guise of religion for theocratic rule—we realize that subversive exploit of all manner is being unleashed through our free society.

      The Islam movement has it’s star leadership—we all know it by its name.

      The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 in Egypt, an organization that established Islam as a modern movement. It was, and remains to this day the ideological heart of all the later Islamic groups.

      Firstly, focus – for now –to come to terms with a political left which has totally lost its moral compass and political bearings. Islam has embedded the strategic effort of divide and conquer , and with a working goal, that seeks to meld with certain movements, and beyond that, exchange Islam, in the place of the former left’s territory—that is their hope.

      Islam such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hammas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime do not hide their goal –the re-constituting of democratic societies and their replacement by a sharia-based dictatorial rule. All Muslim Nations support this.

      In the mind of Islam, the Democracy way of life, constitutes, rebellion against obedience to Islam, It has to be changed. Total obedience must be to the orders and prohibitions of Islam’s Law. The Islam belief is that allowing people political and personal freedom amounts to heresy.

      It is astonishingly so troublesome, that, the political left has enabled Islam, it is so disturbing how they have fell in with such fellowship—but they have—no news there—yet.

      With the left resisting anything conservative, it will not recognize Islam hating constitutional freedom as wrong—not yet.

      Multiculturalism has been the Ideal for so long, that any criticism of any group, is not acceptable unless it is the group (s) that the “In People” say is ok to criticize. If this is allowed to continue we will not be able to share any honest, open and diverse opinions of our own—we may even accept a warped collective mindset.

      Islam’s threat to our personal freedom is not a point of discussion in academia nor any public forum of any kind—this is a strong political fail-safe for Islam to enjoy—for now—that is changing.

      There is no other active anti-Democracy movement like Islam.

  6. rubiconcrest says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 8:46 am

    Great suggestions Hugh and one more turn the table line of reasoning under Paragraph 5:
    If one needs to speak Arabic to truly understand the Quran then the countries with the most Arabic speakers as a percentage of the population must be the true face of Islam. The countries with the highest percentage of Arabic speakers, Egypt 72%, Algeria 67% and Saudi Arabia 66%, approximately 112 million Arabic speakers, must know the Quran best of all, yes? They then are the face of true Islam. Those countries could be considered the most Islamic. The are the shining cities on the hill that all Muslims wish to emulate?

  7. beyondculturewars says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 8:56 am

    I’ve also learned quite a bit from David Wood and Ravi Zacharias, and Jay Smith.

  8. Adrian says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 9:37 am

    Truly excellent and inspiring article. Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald.

  9. commonsense says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 11:17 am

    Just a few desultory comments:

    I would inform those non-Muslims present at these outreach events, if and when Jesus and Mary are mentioned in praiseworthy terms by the Muslim propagandists, that Muslims believe that both of these figures, central to Christianity, were actually pre-Muhammedan Muslims themselves, and that Jesus (Issa), according to Islamic belief, foretold the advent of Muhammed, referring to an “Ahmad” who will come afterward and be a prophet greater than Jesus himself. Muslims believe this prophecy can be found in the Gospel of St. John. There will be disbelief, undoubtedly, on the part of all non-Muslims present, but you can reinforce your assertion by referring to the hadith, found in Bukhari in several iterations (ex. Vol. 3, Bk. 34, #425, and Vol. 3, Bk. 43, #656), where Muhammed avows that Jesus will return and will break the Cross, kill the pig, and abolish jizya, which means that Jesus will abolish the false religion of Christianity and make Islam universal, so that no infidels will remain from whom jizya, an obligatory and punitive tax placed on Christians and Jews, can be extracted. I would announce, moreover, that Muslims believe that ALL of the Hebrew patriarchs mentioned in both the Old Testament and the Qur’an were actually Muslims, who preached Islam before Muhammed’s arrival, and that Muslims believe Judaism and Christianity are corrupted, distorted versions of Islam, which are not acceptable to Allah. I would, if time allows, illustrate this by reading the first Sura of the Qur’an, which obliquely condemns Jews (those who have incurred Allah’s wrath) and Christians (those who have lost their way), citing Ibn Kathir’s explanation (there is at least one hadith attributing this explanation to Muhammed directly, but I can’t find it).
    It is almost certain that whoever presents the above information will be shut down quickly, even by non-Muslim members of the audience who are now uncomfortable, so it is far preferable to form a cadre of well-informed and well-prepared individuals who will be ready to continue the questions and comments as allies are silenced. Members of such cadres should sit apart from one another and enter separately, so that their presence as a subversive force is not discernible, at least not at the beginning. It’s far, far better not to do this alone; when one is part of a team of capable interlocutors, this also instills confidence that others will have your back, and there is less personal risk to oneself should things, somehow, get ugly. Furthermore, you will be less likely to be perceived as a lone crank, or, at best, an informed but eccentric loner who’s out to make trouble.
    You will find that your Muslim propagandists can be quite creative in their use of taqiyya and kitman, sometimes hilariously so, although this will elude the uninformed. For example, I recently attended an “interfaith” event, where I heard a local imam cite Qur’an 2:256. I was briefly allowed to comment, identifying that passage as one that has been abrogated, and cited 9:29 and 9:5 as examples of late “revelations” that superseded more conciliatory verses also recited by the imam. The audience was aghast. The imam replied that I was incorrect – 9:29, and 9:5 were actually abrogated by 2:256! The audience heaved a collective sigh of relief, and my assertion that this was false went largely unheeded, as, after all, the imam IS A MUSLIM, and he Ought to Know, whereas I’m just a dilettante, studying Islam as an autodidact without guidance from actual Muslim expert.

    • commonsense says

      Feb 11, 2017 at 11:43 am

      One other thing – smartphones can be useful, but searches can take too long to be an effective tool if one is to be at the ready to contest a false or misleading remark at one of these “interfaith” or outreach events. The best way to employ a smartphone is to have designated “searchers” within your cadre of counterjihadists, whose task it is to find, as quickly as possible, source material that is needed for success in any exchange with Muslim propagandists or their apologists. Thus, when members of the cadre hear something that needs refutation or validation, they should begin searching immediately for such information, and, when found, attempt to present the information while there is still time, or while it is still relevant. This should, again, be done as part of a group effort. So once group member Harry, for example, is told that a passage in the Qur’an has never been abrogated, others in the group should hastily search for evidence that this is in fact false, and attempt to present such evidence to the audience. If this is done properly – and it will take considerable practice – your Muslim propagandists will wind up playing Whack-a-Mole. Every time one of you is silenced or disparaged, another member of your group will pop up to continue the effort to expose the falsehoods and half-truths that the propagandists want you to believe.

    • commonsense says

      Feb 11, 2017 at 12:50 pm

      errata: “…from whom jizya, an obligatory and punitive tax placed on Christians and Jews, can be extracted.” That should be “exacted.”
      Also: “…from actual Muslim expert”..make that “experts”.

    • commonsense says

      Feb 11, 2017 at 1:03 pm

      I wish to add yet another addendum to my earlier comments. The imam who insisted that 9:5 and 9:29 have been abrogated offered this explanation: These verses come from the Meccan period, when Muslims were weak, few in number, and under siege. Later, after Muhammed left Mecca for Medina and became powerful and confident about the durability and stability of the religious society that he had created, he became more tolerant toward non-Muslims, as exemplified by 2:256. There was, quoth this imam, no longer any need for 9:5 and 9:29. I protested that the imam had gotten this exactly backward, that 2:256 was, in fact, a Meccan verse, and the other two were Medinan. I did not have the opportunity to cite Muhammed’s command, as he lay dying, to expel all Jews and Christians from Arabia. The host of the event silenced me before I could mention this.

      • RodSerling says

        Feb 11, 2017 at 4:33 pm

        Commonsense,

        You’ve got to really do some careful homework before you go into a situation like that. Your general rebuttal to the imam’s brazenly backwards presentation is correct. However, part of it is wrong:

        “I protested that the imam had gotten this exactly backward, that 2:256 was, in fact, a Meccan verse,”

        That’s false. 2:256 is regarded as early Medinan. All you had to say there, if you are making the abrogation argument, is that 9:5 and 9:29 are much later-revealed.

        There are multiple occasions wherein Muhammad reportedly recited or uttered “no compulsion in deen,” and the one captured in 2:256 is Medinan. I don’t know of any that are Meccan. Another Medinan period citation of it, according to Ishaq, was in threatening the Khaybar Jews.

        • commonsense says

          Feb 11, 2017 at 5:43 pm

          Thanks for your constructive advice!

  10. RodSerling says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    Hugh,

    I recall in the summer of 2006 you wrote an article on this site calling for a Handbook for Infidel Debaters. We had an urgent need for it then, but a decade has passed without this crucial tool for educating our fellow non-Muslims. As each year goes by, and we go from news story to news story, the demographic jihad continues to progress–recently making a huge leap* in the past two years due to Western politicians’ monumental idiocy and/or malice–the need for such a manual increases. *Germany’s Muslim population in 2016 was at least where Pew projected it to be by approximately 2027. I’ve been building files along these lines ever since I started to research Islam in 2005 (e.g., my file on Demographic Jihad is now about 93 pages long, and it does not even include the massive surge in the past couple of years). The need for this fact-based handbook is clear when we consider the vast extent of whitewashing and apologia from our mainstream media, elected representatives, and (most) academic specialists on this subject, contrasted with the increasing problems of violence, costs, and reduction in quality of life for non-Muslims due to the behavior of Muslims.

    I envision at least two major Handbooks. One of the major Handbooks should primarily be a fact-based document organized around major topics (The Goal of Islam, Islamic Views of Disbelief and non-Muslims, Jihad, Overview of Major Aspects of Sharia, Blasphemy/Free Expression, Demographics and Immigration, and so on) accessible online and easily readable in PC and mobile versions. Note: This fact base should not try to address specific Islam apologetic lines. That’s a different, but related project (see below)

    The Handbook should be as concise, yet as comprehensive, as possible. It should cover all the topics that are important to the interests of non-Muslims. For each topic, evidence cited from credible sources (that are as authoritative and non-partisan as possible) should be presented from or concerning…

    1. The Islamic Texts – Qur’an and Muhammad’s Example and Rulings
    2. Islamic Law, and Laws in Muslim-Majority Countries (Past and Present)
    3. History of Islam, Concerning Policies Toward and Treatment of non-Muslims
    4. The Present Situation in Global Perspective (e.g., threats to minorities with Muslim-majority countries, and threats to non-Muslims in the West, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc.)
    5. The Policies and Aims of Muslim-Majority Countries and Islamic Groups
    6. Empirical Studies and Other Evidence on Muslims’ Views, Behavior, and Practices

    Note that what I describe above is a Handbook of facts. I think that a Handbook or Manual to refute pro-Islam myths and false claims (that are purveyed either by Muslims or non-Muslim mainstream media, politicians, and some academics) would be a different document which lists the numerous pro-Islam claims under different topic headings, and in response to each such myth-claim provides concise yet complete rebuttals or clarifications, all heavily referenced with evidence of the sort listed in 1-6, above, and relying only on credible non-partisan sources. Many of these links to sources could go to the references in the Handbook of facts.

    These two “documents”–a Handbook of Facts and a Handbook of Rebuttals–would of course need to be available free, online, and easily readable on PC, mobile, or whatever platforms are used by most people. Also–and this is very important–we need translations of these documents in German, French, Italian, Spanish, and so on.

    Finally, we need a third such Handbook/Manual on legally-acceptable actions and projects that can be taken to oppose jihad, sharia, and Islamization, especially in the areas of public policy, freedom of expression, immigration, etc. Where existing legislation does not exist, we need to elect people to public office who will make that legislation.

  11. Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 4:31 pm

    I disagree with the assertion that Quran 5:32 (“whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind”) sounds good. Let me tell a little story to show how this passage works out in practice…

    A few years ago, I was walking along the Niagara River when I saw three children in the water, drifting and about to be carried over the falls to their death. Being a strong swimmer, I jumped in and brought one of the children to shore. I could have save the other two kids as well, but then I remembered this passage. My good deed in saving one of them was equivalent to saving all 7 billion people on earth, so I would gain nothing by saving anybody else. Realizing this, I let the other two kids get swept over the falls and die. It seemed morally daft to let them die, and I felt a little uneasy about it, but both Jehovah (in the Mishnah) and Allah (in Quran 5:32) agree that “saving one is enough”, so who am I to question Them?

  12. RodSerling says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 4:54 pm

    Hugh,

    You skipped the exception in 5:32!

    “The first is 5:32 without its modifying 5:33. 5:32 says that “whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.”

    Here’s 5:32 “For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.”

    “This verse, lifted from the Jewish text of the Mishnah, sounds good. But it is the verse that immediately follows – 5:33 — that prescribes rather than proscribes killing, turning 5:32 upside down:”

    5:33 is consistent with 5:32, because the former contains “except for…mischief in the land” and a reference to past disobedience to Allah’s apostles. This exception sets up 5:33, which describes the punishments for this mysterious “spreading mischief in the land,” and “war against Allah and the messenger [Muhammad].” That spreading of “mischief/corruption” is a broad category that includes a wide range of words and deeds (or promotion of such) that go against Islam.

    The “mischief/corruption” exception in 5:32 allows for the killing people who go against Islam or Islamic law. Multiple countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and possibly others, have explicit reference in their laws to the spreading of mischief/corruption and punish it severely.

  13. RodSerling says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 5:25 pm

    The Handbook projects are major undertakings, requiring a lot of planning and funding. I think the project, to be done well within the time frame of a few years, would require funding in the tens of millions of dollars (US), at least. It may easily get into hundreds of millions. Except for the Trump administration and perhaps those of some Eastern European countries, it doesn’t seem likely that our governments will take on this project. Anyway, the most basic outline of the plan would be something like this:

    Step 1 Make a plan for the content and format of the project, and a budget.

    Step 2: Acquire funding from sources that will not bias the project — grassroots funding would be ideal.

    Step 3. Hire knowledgeable, qualified individuals, including those who have specialized knowledge of the Islamic texts, laws, current conditions, statistics, etc.
    Also hire qualified people who know other languages such as German, French, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, and so on, and Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Persian, Turkish. These individuals should not only know the language for the purposes of translating the main Handbooks but, particularly in the non-Muslim countries and communities, should have extensive knowledge of and access to credible sources in their region. E.g., to have a good handle on what’s happening in Germany and how we can present our finished product to Germans, we need at least one knowledgeable German-speaking person to have a realistic sense of what’s going on there and have access to good sources and source material.

    Step 4. Get people into public office and leadership positions who will oppose Islamization.

  14. LR says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    Another idea..

    How about those knowledgeable about the facts of hot topics like the Israeli/Palestinian issue, go to those nice ‘informative’ public meetings on the issue, at ‘Peace and Justice’ centers and such, where it is mostly a Jew/Israel bashing session. (With a dose of being warned about Islamophobia sites like Jihad Watch).

    These might be put on by at least one fervent ‘non-zionist’ Jew, along with maybe a Palestinian.

    Headway can sometimes be made if people talk and debate in a respectful manner. Listening skills are very important.

  15. RodSerling says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    I should also mention there are at least two existing online versions of this Handbook project we’re talking about. Clearly, though, these sites are too casual and incomplete; they are not nearly up to task in terms of comprehensiveness, organization, and academic rigor.

    The Religion of Peace .com site has multiple sections that deal with refuting Islam apologetics and which present fact-based criticisms of Islam. (Look at the subheadings under Islam and Muhammad, for example)
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    The other is WikiIslam, though recently the site was acquired by Ex-Muslims of North America. Perhaps due to their political leanings, they explicitly try to distance the project from Robert Spencer and Ali Sina.
    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

  16. LR says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    Oh, I don’t know…

    If I saw an eager and inviting Imam at a mosque, I would gladly like to see how pretty it was or not inside.

    If we got into a discussion about the wonders of Islam, I might just let him know I am a great admirer and supporter of Aayan Hirsi Ali, a great supporter of free speech, (including Mohammed cartoons) and a great admirer of wonderful western art with all the nudes and such. The creative spirit needs to be alive and well, and one cannot squash the creativity of the human spirit. That will never happen. And I might ask, “Why do so many Islamic dominated countries have a problem with FGM, honor killing, child marriage (accepted child rape), and apostacy?

    “That death for apostacy thing kind of kills it for me”.

    Screw debating the Qur’an…I just stick with the basics.

    • RodSerling says

      Feb 11, 2017 at 7:04 pm

      I tend to agree with this, at least when I get into conversations. It’s a huge waste of time to debate the Islamic texts such as the Quran and Hadiths with Muslims. Indeed, while they may immensely enjoy their time talking about Islam, I don’t. (And I say this as someone who has spent way too much time debating Islam apologists). I want their arguments defeated as quickly and efficiently as possible. If I have to choose between the two, I’d be more inclined to talk about what Muslims actually believe and practice today, than I would to talk about Islamic texts. And my audience would be (and is) non-Muslims who need to be educated, not deceptive Islam apologists/con artists. I’d only address the apologist’s claims in the context of showing the facts to non-Muslims. We don’t have time to convert Muslims or reform Islam. That would take possibly generations, centuries. What we can do is try to appeal to our fellow non-Muslims and try to save our societies from the spread of vast numbers of Muslims, many of whom hold terrible views and hostility toward us, partly as shown by what they are actually doing now in Europe.

      Arguing about the Islamic texts is important if we want to establish whether something is “Islam” or not. That’s an important part of the project. However, knowing the Islamic texts is only important insofar as it is a reliable predictor of Muslim behavior. The immediate problem is Muslims and what they believe and practice (not all of which is purely Islamic). Without them, Islam would not be a problem now; it would be history. The task of establishing what Islam says is a sub-task of establishing what Muslims believe and can do to non-Muslims. Islam is their playbook.

      The Handbook is needed because all of these exchanges take a huge amount of time and get repeated ad nauseam. In the Handbook, we can make the rebuttal once and for all, solid, complete, and well-referenced, and just cite it when we need it, instead of going through detailed arguments. Saving time in our effort to bring our fellow non-Muslims up to speed on this issue is the crucial benefit of the Handbook project. We cannot continue to go year after year, news article to news article, incident to incident, argument to argument. We need a Handbook resource that deals with all of it in one well organized body, translated into multiple languages.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Feb 19, 2017 at 7:49 am

      Yep.

      For me, the apostasy ‘law’ is *the* ‘deal-breaker”.

      It’s the one we should mention, at every opportunity, when we are dealing not with Msulims but with eager, naive, starry-eyed virtue-signalling Infidel “defenders of Islam” who have somehow convinced themselves that “Muslims are the new Jews”.

      We must be able to cite the Hadith reference (most people don’t even *know* about the Hadith or the Sira, and that they are as much a source of Islam-as-lived, both now and historically, as the Quran).

      We must be able to cite examples of here-and-now threatened and persecuted apostates.

      Figures from the Pew Surveys, which offer at least a baseline on how many Muslims, both in the West and in the dar al islam, are prepared to openly admit to believing that apostates should be killed, are also useful.

      Ask our Infidel ‘defenders-of-Islam’, sweetly and nicely: okay, so you’re fine with letting thousands or hundreds of thousands of people into our countries, who are card-carrying members of a cult that decrees – just like the Mafia – that anyone who leaves it *ought to be killed*????

  17. simpleton1 says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 7:37 pm

    Thank you Hugh, and also to Jihad Watch and many other commentators.

    It does take some time to absorb and become knowledgeable about islam,
    You are right that we can see the formulas of their arguments, so can counter point quite effectively.

    The difficulty is taking the time and dedication to know enough about islam to be effective.
    That being it is a terrible thing to learn about, but we must learn as it strives to be come a major and controlling effect in our and families’ future lives.

    Practice commenting like on this forum, and other similiar forums to learn, and hone your skills. Others will kindly polish your arguments, or make you think again, and so review/research or reaffirm your thoughts on islam.
    Also in commenting you are encouraging others to learn and to persevere.
    Just being supportive and thankful for others.

    Many tips can be found, like above where ‘commonsense’ used some opportunities and RodSerling gave some tips.

    RodSerling keeping his own file, is great, as I do something similiar.
    It is the background of one’s learning, as we all know that we know something, but just when and where, and just to be able to find it, refresh your brain, update more knowledge and understanding to the file, for that is what you have really absorbed, and understand. That customization to your own experience, so that your comments or speaking is done with great depth.

    To speak with others over a dinner, and with in depth knowledge, makes the discussion much more interesting to others.
    Though at the end do not dominate, and at a certain point give it a rest.The ones who have listened will research or things will click into place for them at another time. Then people will ask your view on things at another time.

    A handy link of figuring out the weighting of the verses, and abrogation, and chronological order of that tedious koran, on line..
    http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/index.html

    Theme 1. ALLAH – Allah is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing.

    Theme 2. BELIEVERS – Allah is good to believers in this life, then they go to paradise.

    Theme 3. UNBELIEVERS – Unbelievers are bad, guilty and dangerous to the believers. They, …………….and those who disobey Allah, are punished in this life then they go to hell.

    Theme 4. JIHAD – It is the duty of believers to spread Islam by jihad (fighting/striving in …………. …Allah’s way).
    [above themes colour coded]
    (NB Abrogated verses are also marked. Just hover over the reference for the abrogating verse)
    Or you can jump straight to a particular sura:

    http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/index.html

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Feb 19, 2017 at 7:59 am

      You wrote – “To speak with others over a dinner, and with in depth knowledge, makes the discussion much more interesting to others.
      Though at the end do not dominate, and at a certain point give it a rest.”

      *That* – especially when the situation is so terribly urgent – is perhaps the hardest thing for at least some of us to learn how to do . I am still learning it, and I am not very good at it… as my husband and other family members can attest. We can end up rather like Cato the Elder with the line he worked into every speech – “Delenda est Carthago!”

      A good site to visit, in conjunction with Mr Fitzgerald’s advice and counsel, is “Citizen Warrior”, and a book produced by same – “Getting Through”. Read, reread, think.

      We *have* to restrain the temptation to “data dump”.

      I think, myself, as regards our fellow Infidels. that we should not underestimate the intelligence and ‘bump of curiosity’ that, as westerners, brought up on western kiddie books and fairy tales, they still possess. yes, many, especially the younger ones, have been heavily indoctrinated… but many, many are capable of ‘waking up’. All it takes is something to pique their curiosity. We have *got* to try to work out how to make them curious.

      One of the first things Ayaan Hirsi Ali noticed about westerners – and her first real immersion in a western country was in *notoriously liberal’ and what many Americans would view as ‘leftist’ or ‘socialist’ Netherlands – was their *curiosity*, their questioning, their lack of passivity. They were *different* from the incurious and fatalistic mohammedans among whom she had been brought up.

      Think about that. The modern seemingly-dumbed-down Netherlands – but ‘the West’, the *real* West, the curiosity, the opennes, the questioning, the ability to *think* – was still there, just under the surface.

      Except for the *most* heavily-and-wilfully indoctrinated, i think that bedrock is still there, in more places and people than we think.

      it’s just a matter of finding the way to it.

  18. Wang Weilin says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 8:07 pm

    I would ask the Islamic inter-faith propagandists the following questions: Mohammad is the perfect example to follow? They agree, then say In the Qur’an 19:88,89 Mohammad says the concept of God having a son is monstrous… how can there be inter-faith dialogues when Mohammad was repulsed by Christ as the son of God? Did Mohammad have inter-faith dialogues?

  19. mortimer says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 10:02 pm

    Fitzgerald is right. Debating Muslims is tough because they evade the issues so much. This is verbal jihad. Dr. Hans Jansen, a Dutch Islam expert said that it takes a strong stomach to debate with Muslims. In Hansen’s words, here’s why:

    “In 2006/2007, a Dutch comedian got into trouble with an Islamic activist about the Theo van Gogh assassination. The comedian, on his own initiative, then consulted a local Amsterdam Imam and the board of his mosque, asking them directly whether they wanted to kill him. The Imam only looked stern, and did not say anything, acting as if he did not understand Dutch — which perhaps he did not. However, a smiling board member assured the comedian that they had no plans to kill him, because ‘for such things we have the radicals’. This perfectly illustrates the situation. The majority is silent, the Imam limits himself to looking dignified, his direct supporters bring the bad news, and the elite soldiers, true commandos, true mujahidin, do the dirty work.
    Governments hesitate to resist these commandos; those under attack usually have to defend themselves. It is best to fight back indirectly, and try to influence Muslims into realizing that over the centuries an ever-widening gap has opened up between what they sincerely and sometimes naively see as Islam and the accumulated prescripts and restrictions the clergy wants to see applied. We should ask Muslim laymen again and again what the human writers of the Sharia handbooks know more than the archangel Gabriel when he revealed the Koran to Muhammad?
    The Koran brings bad news to someone who does not want to submit to Islam, but as explicit as the Sharia it is not. We may, moreover, freely criticize recently annotated and revised Sharia handbooks, nothing in our laws and customs forbids us to do so. However, criticizing an ancient holy text can easily be portrayed as uncivilized. The many contemporary Sharia handbooks are, to the contrary, fair game. Their authors are only human, men like you and me. But the writers of these Sharia books certainly claim to know more than all the prophets and archangels combined.
    Here the friends of Islam will cleverly try to undermine our trustworthiness. When we appeal to an ancient classic Sharia handbook, and point to its bloodthirsty and explicit contents, they will say: ‘Oh, well, this is an old book, not relevant any longer, no normal average Muslim knows of this book’. When we quote modern contemporary sources of a similar nature, they will say: ‘Well, this is a recent innovation that has no meaning for the general picture of Islam’. If we quote both old and new sources, they will say that we bore them by repeating multiple irrelevancies. A strong stomach is an absolute requisite for anyone who joins such debates.”

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Feb 19, 2017 at 8:02 am

      Mortimer – can you give an exact source and reference for this very interesting material from Professor Hans Jansen?

  20. Carl Goldberg says

    Feb 11, 2017 at 10:48 pm

    Another brilliant article by Hugh Fitzgerald! Yes, we should be training cadres of speakers and debaters on Islam, and let us hope that the David Horowitz Freedom Center can set up such training program under Robert Spencer’s direction.

    If there is a defect in High Fitzgerald’s argument it is that the Moslem apologists will not consent to debate a knowledgeable kaffir. It has become nearly impossible even to ask enlightening questions at those so-called interfaith events because the sponsors and the Moslems have learned not to take open questions. If they take questions at all, it is by question cards selected by the sponsors who will not take any questions which shed a negative light on Islam and in any way disturb the lovy-dovy ecumenical atmosphere of the evening. Our problem remains how to reach the naive non-Moslem audiences with the truth about Islam.

    • Mark Swan says

      Feb 12, 2017 at 1:30 am

      The general population, must be made aware of Islam and its intent.

      Right now we can not even bring up the need for such a open and thorough
      debate on Islam in any mass media forum, can we?

      Perhaps a mass media source could be found to begin the general releasing of public
      awareness information that could be made available to start the general conversation.

      The hope that Muslims would accept such a open and thorough debate which could be
      viewed by the whole World is very unrealistic.

      Likely, some major event could reduce their special people status, which could
      give the general public opportunity to see a challenge for such a widely viewed
      debate on Islam.

  21. Cretius says

    Feb 16, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    Sharia Law can never be compatible with Canadian law. The basic problem is that there is no concept of equality in Sharia Law. Not within Islam or within the teachings of Islam. Islam is a supremacist system that rejects and suppresses all other systems of government and religion. The history of Islam is proof that it is incompatible with democracy and other religions. At best Muslims are a suspect population living among us.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Israel At A Crossroads?
  • Infidel on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • iconoclast123 on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • gravenimage on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Brando on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.