A Handbook for Muslim Debaters certainly exists. It consists of all the wiles and evasions and mistatements and tu-quoque (Zionists! Americans in Iraq! Stealing Our Oil! The Crusades! The Inquisition! The Holocaust! Timothy McVeigh! and so on) that have been used to obscure the truth about the Jihad, and which we have seen so often in the comments section here at Jihad Watch.
This kind of deception comes naturally to many people in societies where, as one Christian informant who spent the first 40 years of his life in Haleb told me, a Muslim will not even trust his own brother to enter his house when the man in the family is away, and where one lives in a miasma of rumor and fear and mistrust, and where the most implausible things are believed. Why would they not be, when one is raised in a society suffused with an attitude entirely inimical to free and skeptical inquiry?
But no such Handbook for Infidel Debaters exists. Nor does there exist a handbook for those who conduct radio programs.
Perhaps one can suggest that a few basic points should be raised, and answers -- clear answers -- demanded of any and every apologist for Islam who wishes to appear on any show.
These should focus on several matters:
1) The division of the world between Believer and Infidel, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Passages from the Qur'an and stories from the Hadith should be in possession of the radio talk-show host or interviewer, so that there will be not mere silence, or a mere expression of "that isn't true" or "that can't be true." Rather, the Muslim spokesman will be presented with a point-by-point offering of the textual evidence.
2) The duty of Jihad, called by some the Sixth Pillar of Islam, and when it is a collective and when an individual duty (quotes at the ready), and what the goal of Jihad (to spread Islam until it dominates everywhere, and everywhere Muslims rule) is – all this should be constantly dinned into the minds of listeners. Furthermore, Infidel debaters and talk-show hosts should have ready a list, taken from Muslim sources, of the varied instruments of Jihad: qital or combat (including what can reasonably be described as terrorism), the "money" or "wealth" weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest. Have figures on the size of Muslim families, on the demands made by the Muslims within the Lands of the Infidels for changes to the Infidel legal, political, and social institutions, and also figures on the growth of Muslim populations in the Western world since, roughly, 1960 or 1970 -- broken down by country. And don't forget to include the triumphalist remarks about conquest through demography, made by everyone from Boumedienne at the United Nations in 1974, to a mild-mannered Pakistani accountant writing an article in the newspaper "Dawn."
3. Ask the Muslim interlocutor about the figure of Muhammad, and about the description of him as "uswa hasana" (a phrase used three times in the Qur'an, twice in relation to Abrham, once about Muhammad), or "al-insan al-kamil." Ask if he, Muhammad, is indeed regarded as the Perfect Man, whose behavior and whose words and deeds are a model -- Sunnah -- for Muslims to emulate, and emulate in every way. If that is conceded, then proceed to list some of the things with which Muhammad is associated: the Khaybar Oasis attack, the decapitation of the Banu Qurayza, the seizure and enslavement of women, the murder of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, the marriage and sexual intercourse with nine-year-old Aisha, and so on.
In no time at all, that Muslim spokesman will be spluttering. "How dare you? How dare you bring up these things? I'm leaving. I'm not coming back."
Induce the hysteria, just the way an obstetrician induces the contractions. Make those mental contractions begin early in the program. Have the mask of sweet reason pulled off as soon as possible.
Go to it.
It will be most effective.
And surely, many who visit this website could produce such a guide, not only to be made available for debaters and talk-show hosts on radio and television, but also for those who simply show up at this or that occasion for "dialogue" at a mosque, or at some presentation during "Islam Week" at some campus, or at some political gathering. It could and should be produced by and for those who, entirely clear-thinking and unintimidated, appear expressly in order to throw a truthful spanner in the lying works.
Perhaps that someone ought to be you? If you'd make it into a downloadble ebook, you might use it to help support this site as well.
Another item we need is a list of required reading on this topic. I homeschool, and now that my two older boys have read Mr. Spencer's books, I'd like to have an entire resource guide. I've added the subject to their curricula for the year, even for the two younger boys. A permanent list on the homepage would be extremely useful, especially for those who are new here.
"But no such Handbook for Infidel Debaters exists."
This is pretty useful:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam_myths.html
Their should be a standardized Power point that can given to Church groups and others that includes introduction concepts and also advanced topics for continued study .
We also Need a kafir friendly political party
I think Robert's next book request is pretty obvious.........
I'll buy copies for everyone I know, Knowledge is true power!
I would suggest focusing the booklet on Islam and not getting into any marketing ploys or pep rallies attempting to convert people to Christianity. You are just going to turn off a lot of people like the site suggested above.
The Answering Islam web site is very systematic and thorough, however it is probably too long to print off if you want to keep the material reasonably compact.
If you are going the book route, I still have to recommend Why I Am Not A Muslim. For the Jihad angle Robert's Onward Muslim Soldiers is still relevant and superbly written.
The idea about an ebook and the possibility of contributing is excellent. I would hope that you would get a variety of writers involved from different backgrounds.
The Alpha Course introduction to basic Christianity (http://alpha.org/) has been taken by millions worldwide and helped Christians to both defend the faith and unify the message. But it is only one part of what should be a major push back against Islam. The devil is real and his name is Mohammed.
We could do a comic book for kids. The same thing needs to happen like what happened with Hitler and the Soviet Union. Heck, Ithink Donald Duck even fought off Nazis. Weren't many of the comics superheros created as tools to fight off communism and nazisim. I'd like to see Archie and Jughead kicking some jihadi ass.
Tomilio:
Try this one for size. You're not supposed to download or print off "Believe it or else", but I did, printed off a load of copies, and distributed them to sympathetic (to us) parents of teenage kids for them to take to school and pass around. It's pure ridicule
http://www.islamcomicbook.com/
This "handbook" would have to include much more than just an analysis of Islam, or even Islamic culture. It would have to be, or reference, a thorough grounding in world history--real history, before the revisionists and the anti-Orientalists got their hands on it.
Among arguments that the Islamists use, of course, is their twisted history of Israel. In my own experience, a lot of Western Leftist sympathizers with the "rights of the Palestinians" know next to nothing about the history of the Levant, the history of the Jews there, or how Israel came to be founded. That's why they have been so easily bamboozled.
Just setting the record straight on the history of the Jews in the Levant and on the history of Israel, and the true history of the people who call themselves "Palestinians," would accomplish much.
Try:
The sword and the prophet.
A new word for Dhimmispeak: "Rocketfodder", to update the old and well used "Cannonfodder".. :-)
Steven L :"Just setting the record straight on the history of the Jews in the Levant and on the history of Israel, and the true history of the people who call themselves "Palestinians," would accomplish much."
This article (or online booklet), "BIG LIES: Demolishing The Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel" does a pretty good job of that:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:CDq7kE1xwjkJ:www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/BigLies.pdf+david+horowitz+and+the+big+lie+and+israel&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
At this late stage of the game, we Jihadwatching Infidels (a minority still) should have a compendium of all the relevant criticisms of Islam, with citations and references. It needs to include much more than what Hugh suggests here.
I have found the needed information with regard to various prongs of anti-Islamic criticism to be at times overwhelmingly disparate, diffuse and mountainous. It's high time we Jihadwatching Infidels boiled it all down. Surely it's not an impossible task. I'm not talking about boiling down all of Islam; only all the offensive parts (which admittedly still constitutes a prodigious amount).
Would it be too much to ask the Jihad Watch organization itself to spearhead the development and publication of such an enchiridion? Someone has got to do it. It should have been done years ago.
Here is a useful resource, by the way, posted in a JW comment section. The comment (essay, really) is Hugh's. It is his fourth comment, and it compares fascism with Islam. The citations from the koran are quite useful:
http://www.wrightmanalpines.com/
Dang! This is what happens when trying to multi-task. I did not intend to direct you to an alpine plants nursery, I wanted to point out Hugh's fourth comment on this JE page, much more useful for you non-gardeners. I'm so sorry for the attack of blonde I just had. Here's the link:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012659.php#comments
Thanks for the link libby. While it's a good source of info, it's only one small portion of the overall constellation of problems, and we Infidels should have at our fingertips brief, referenced refutations to all of the Islamic holes in that constellation.
Too often, I have had questions related to making an anti-Islamic point, and have had to go hunting, often spending an hour and still coming up empty. There are hundreds of sites and links, none providing a sufficiently definitive and complete resource, most of them overlapping with partial information, many of them having internal links leading one on a never-ending adventure into the rich complexity of Islam.
Just to take an example of one small portion of the complete picture we are still missing in 2006: if I were to pose the question in a venue like this or Little Green Footballs or in those notorious anti-Islam rooms at Paltalk chat -- "What are all the violent anti-Infidel verses in the Quran and Sahih Hadith?" -- on a good day (when people are being generous and helpful) I would be flooded with helpful responses and links, but usually none of those responses would be sufficient, and too many of them would be overlapping in information in maddeningly complex ways. "Um, thanks for showering me with a hundred jigsaw puzzles..."
If I were to embark upon collecting those verses myself, I know it would entail a solid few hours of tedious laborious Googling (it would have to include a long list of key Arabic terms transliterated into English and all their alternative translations into English), and I frankly don't want to do it yet. I resent the fact that this information is not collected in one place. For God's sakes, it should be by now. My frustration about this situation will likely soon lead me to doing that work by myself.
This is an intolerable situation in 2006 for us Infidels.
We need a complete and definitive handbook located in one place! Surely that is not an impossible feat to accomplish???
A short handbook is a great idea. Not for people who frequent this site and who are prepared to do lots of reading but for those people who are mildly interested and have the attention span of a gnat. It needs to be succinct and cover not only a short history of this cult but present the "arguments" which are wheeled out time and time again by muslims on TV with accompanying rebuttals for infidels.
Caroline,
Thanks for the link re Israel.
Remote/TV,
As was pointed out on JW/DW several months ago, a booklet has already been made up, see Blue Scarf Society materials, which is on Rebecca's website New English Review.
Second, I think it is much easier to recommend a book such as Robert's Politically Incorrect Guide, or Ibn Warraq's Why I am not a Muslim.
Third, Ali Sina has a three-page essay that cites (with links) all of the main Islamic text verses here.
That is an excellent Introduction to Islam which can be read in 10-20 minutes online.
All the raw materials are readily available. You could assemble them, the parts you wish to emphasize, on your blog. Practically all of the raw materials you'd need, in terms of Islamic text quotes, are posted in the Resources Section under categorized headings at Islam-Watch (click on Archimedes below from here for the link). Anyone can use the site, and combine the Islamic quotes with illustrative examples from Islamic history (Andrew Bostom's articles on line have useful historical examples) and current events.
As for arguments/debates, I have not seen anyone put together anything like a list of arguments and counter-arguments, summarized in a succinct fashion. I have notes on this, but don't have time to write the whole thing up as a finished product at the moment.
Archimedes,
The Blue Scarf Society booklet is good, but has two flaws:
1) it's very incomplete
2) it should also include tactics by which to anticipate and respond to likely objections (raised by Muslims and PC people) to each and every citation it provides. The most common objection, as you know, is the one about "context". There are many other types of objection.
A sincere Jihadwatcher of normal education (i.e., not a rocket scientist or PhD in the history of religion) armed with the Blue Scarf Society booklet would be made mincemeat of within a matter of minutes, unless they had both a complete reference arsenal, and a template on how to respond to the typical objections.
The purpose for a definitive, complete and single booklet is not just for theoretical purposes, as one more neat thing to have out there. It is necessary for every one of us to have readily available. Telling people to go buy Spencer's book is fine and dandy, but should only be a supplementary tack, not a replacement for what each of us Jihadwatchers need to have handy whenever we find ourselves wanting to engage someone on this problem.
This process of a booklet needs to be like a machine. Having various links to go to -- "try Ali Sina's site, oh the Blue Scarf Society has something good, go ahead and Google "hadith" yourself, take 5 hours to scroll through the archives at Jihad Watch", etc. -- is intolerably scattershot for what is needed. We need a tight, efficient, definitive, complete and compact machine. And I think it's doable.
I will soon check out the Ali Sina site and your site now and report back.
Remote,
"go ahead and Google "hadith" yourself, take 5 hours to scroll through the archives at Jihad Watch", etc. -- is intolerably scattershot for what is needed."
LOL! To be clear, I didn't suggest that.
I agree with the pursuit of a lean mean booklet or handbook with all the angles covered (Islamic texts, law, historical examples, key current events, future concerns; and worded in such a way as to address directly certain key arguments/counterarguments that typically arise).
Hugh says that we need a handbook for infidel debaters. Cathkins suggests, I think correctly, that it needs to "present the "arguments" which are wheeled out time and time again by muslims on TV with accompanying rebuttals for infidels." Archimedes correctly notes that much of this material is already available on the web, not the least of which is available at Ali Sina's site. Television correctly notes that the accessibility of this information is somewhat lacking for those seeking a quick fix.
I am in agreement with all of the above. Certainly the information is out there. That's not the issue. It seems to be more of an issue to make it accessible in the format that folks might be typically seeking it. Which brings up what Cathkins (and Archimedes) suggests - namely putting it in the format of the TYPICAL "arguments and counterarguments".
So maybe what we need to start with is a long list of the "typical" arguments that we see everyday, in the language they are normally phrased in and get that right first and then proceed from there to work towards having a single "page" addressing that argument with a rebuttal. The page could read like an essay with links to already existing material on the web from any number of sites but also with the most important material quoted from those links so that each argument/rebuttal could be printed out and take no more than one page (there could even be subpages exploring the issue in greater depth but the main page should cover the most salient points). Its primarily an editing job in other words.
Going out on a limb here and just brainstorming off the top of my head, here are some "typical" arguments which seem to frequently require rebuttal (feel free to add your own):
1.There is no compulsion of religion in Islam
2.Islam does not mandate death for apostasy
3.Muhammad was NOT a pedophile. Aisha was actually X years old.
4.Jihad is primarily an inner struggle
5.Jihad is defensive in nature only
6.Muslims and Christians and Jews all worship the same God
7.Sufi Islam is peaceful
8.Wahabbi Islam is the problem
9.Islam spread peacefully and not by the sword
10. There was once a golden age of Islam (and Islam invented a great many things)
11.Islam means peace
12.Women are respected in Islam
13.Koranic quotes are being taken out of context
14.The notion of abrogation does not appear in the Koran – it was a later invention
15.The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the root cause of Islamic terrorism
16.Islamic terrorism is caused by poverty
17.The vast majority of Muslims are moderate and do not endorse terrorism
18.Western imperialism created radical Islam
19.European racism is the cause of the failure of European Muslims to assimilate
20.American Muslims are different than European Muslims
21.Muhammad was a man of impeccable character
22.Stoning is Unislamic
23.Jizya for unbelievers is the equivalent of zakat for the believers.
24. Islam is perfectly compatible with democracy
A big part of the problem , of course, is that some issues are much broader than others (#15 for example) and represent more difficulty in mounting a one-page rebuttal but those broader topics might need to be "nested" where appropriate (with sub-pages).
To repeat - this information is already out there. If people feel frustrated that the information is difficult to put their hands on in a pinch, then its an organizational problem. It shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, however. My suggestion is that we start with a solid list of the "typical" arguments and then work from there.
25. Islam, like all religions, practices the golden rule.
26. Islam abolishes racial discrimination.
27. Islam solves the problem of economic injustice.
28. Islam respects all religious traditions.
29. Islam is compatible with the US Constitution.
(Instead of the 10 myths of Islam I linked to above, we could come up with "100 myths about Islam", each in the form of a typical argument and counterargument).
30. Nothing in Islam actually promises 72 virgins in heaven
31. Muhammad's endorsement of polygamy merely derived from concern to make sure that widows were taken care of (overlooking entirely the fact that Muhammad married the wives of those he killed)
32. Honor killings are unislamic (true/untrue? - not sure about that one so all the more reason to address it. And if its true, e.g. that there is nothing in Islam to explicity support honor killings then that "myth" about islam (that honor killings have something to do with islam as opposed to being cultural) - should be exposed as what it is - a false myth.
33. Islam forbids the taking of "innocent" life.
34. Anti-semitism has no basis in Islam. It represents a modern, European influence on Islam.
TV
Aside from the references that Archimedes mentioned, there is a very good site - the Skeptics annotated Quran - that has pages dedicated to all the vile sections of the Quran, namely Injustice, Intolerance, Cruelty and Violence, Absurdities, Good Stuff, Women, Contradictions, Sex, Interpretations, Science and History, Family Values, Language and Homosexuality. Only 2 flaws I saw with this:
- This site being an athiest site, it doles out similar treatment to both the Bible, as well as the Book of Mormon. So, if you use this site as is, instead of as raw material to create your new material, Muslim opponents would have a field day of tu-quoque with the material on the Bible parts of the site. It wouldn't be a problem with a Christian or Jew who knows his faith inside out, but for most agnostics (which is what the majority of people probably are), it will be a lethal comeback.
- As Archimedes noted about this site, not only are the annotations incomplete, but some of the 'Good Stuff' that they list are really out of context, and when one factors in the Islamic meanings of terms such as Justice, Oppression, Mischief, Corruption, et al, then the number of items in that good stuff list, currently at 62, would rapidly approach zero
I'd be interested to have a look at your booklet whenever you're done. Incidentally, would you be working mainly from Islamic texts to butress our points, or will supplementary material, such as the history of Islamic conquests, social status of Christians and Jews under Islam, all be factored in?Caroline
That's a fascinating list. I'd be interested to see the 100.
Incidentally, would tu-quoque arguments about others also qualify e.g. Christians persecuted Jews more than Muslims did under the Spanish inquisition, etc?
35. Terrorism is unislamic.
35. The Koran can only be truly understood in Arabic.
Cathkins - good one. I was starting to feel a might lonely here.:-)
Caroline, I think you need to expand on that topic. Perhaps you could write a full piece, mentioning the muslim deceptions, and a brief response.
I really think that Spencer needs to put a frequently asked questions section on his website.
It might easily become the kind of thing that could expand into a full length book.
37. More Jews died at the hands of Christians, such as Hitler and Stalin, than at the hands of Muslims.
38. Taqiyya was practiced only by the Shia.
Infidel Pride: "Incidentally, would tu-quoque arguments about others also qualify e.g. Christians persecuted Jews more than Muslims did under the Spanish inquisition, etc?"
Absolutely - tu-quoque arguments are a whole category in and of themselves. A "typical argument" ought to merely (reasonably) merit a single page in a "Handbook for infidel debators" to qualify.
IP: "That's a fascinating list. I'd be interested to see the 100."
IP - we're MAKING the list as we speak! Jump on in and help us out here!
Dan: "Caroline, I think you need to expand on that topic."
Which topic Dan? What we're doing here is proposing topics (or "typical arguments") that need to be expanded upon through rebuttal (sound counterarguments).
IP - whoops sorry! I see that you've already dived in!
39. Islam gave us the number system
Granted, this is a variation on 10.
40. Islam promotes equality of all mankind - starting with the ummah.
41. Lynching of Palestinians by other Palestinians is a result of the Israeli occupation
42. The dispute between India and Pakistan is purely a territorial dispute over Kashmir
43. Malaysia and Indonesia are moderate Muslim countries, where Muslims and Infidels live peacefully next to each other.
44. Iran's championing of Jihad doesn't have much traction in the ummah, given that Iran is Shia, and much of the ummah is Sunni.
45. Iranian mullahs have little influence over Iraqi Shia, since the Iraqi Shia are Arabs, and Iranian Shia are ethnic Persians.
46. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims are extremely benign, and nothing like those in the Arab world.
47. Turks are moderates, and don't really practice Islam.
48. Morocco is more of a European than an Arab country.
49. France's unrest is mainly a reflection of that country's inability to assimilate its Muslims.
50. By contrast, American Muslims are well assimilated.
Caroline
I've taken it to the half century mark - back to you ;->
51. Islam forbids lying ("Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28)
(I was shut out for awhile there. Not sure what happened)
"...and when one factors in the Islamic meanings of terms such as Justice, Oppression, Mischief, Corruption, et al, then the number of items in that good stuff list, currently at 62, would rapidly approach zero."
-Infidel Pride at August 27, 2006 01:08 AM
-Caroline,
Don't forget to add a mohammedan-to-English glossary at the end of your project.
Caroline
At this rate, every poster to this site will need to take one of the items above, or maybe group the related ones, and then shred it to pieces.
52. Islam is an Abrahamic faith with traditions identical to Christianity and Judaism
Archimedes,
I know you didn't propose the one about Googling hadith, but that's what the Blue Scarf Society says near the very beginning of their booklet.
The Ali Sina essay is too discursive and expansive, and it is too distracted by links elsewhere. Everything central should be IN the presentation, not linked elsewhere.
Your site looks good, but your apprently only section to deal directly with Muslim violence against non-Muslims, "Islam vs. Disbelievers", seems to have only one example from Sura 9 -- that seems odd; you'd think Sura 9 and all its violent verses would be the poster child for that particular section.
Also, you have a section there on the "Shia Ruling: Non-Muslims are unclean (najis)"
But I believe, like most of the supposedly exclusively Shiite blemishes, they are clearly based in the Koran, and the ancient Sunni spin against Shia is now being used against Infidels, when Sunnis deflect most criticism by saying, "Oh, that's a Shia thing" (e.g., Muta, Taqiyya, and Infidels as Najis). I believe Infidels equated with "filth ("najis") is in the Koran -- so that fact should be clearly stated in your section, I think.
Good lord. A bunch of regulars are insomniacs (or merely in a different time zone?).
53. The Quran is scientific. (there must be several typical arguments related to this point)
54. Islam is the fastest growing religion and that proves its validity.
IP: "At this rate, every poster to this site will need to take one of the items above, or maybe group the related ones, and then shred it to pieces."
Yes - that's the point. There must be at least 100 smart folks here willing to take on merely one topic each (assuming we can even get to a solid 100 "typical arguments")...But for the time being, not knowing whether anyone is actually willing to pitch in and create this handbook for infidel debators, I am merely rather enjoying the exercise of trying to recall every bullshit typical Muslim argument I can recall off the top of my head. (What else are you gonna do at 3:30am when you've got a bad case of insomnia?):-)
Hi, Caroline, you can count me in the insomniac group.
:)
I think assigning a topic to each of us would be a good idea, providing that the entire book be checked by either Hugh or Mr. Spencer to make sure that all of the answers are 100% correct. The only thing worse than not having such a book would be having a flawed book which would be easy to disprove in such an argument.
Caroline, Infidel Pride, Cathkin, et al --
I spent 20 minutes writing a long post to you about your suggestions, then I lost everything through a computer crash.
I'll just say briefly, good job. The list of Objections you've come up with is virtually complete.
I had only one suggestion -- in a booklet, the Objections should not only occupy a separate section, but they should also be subdivided by type.
I.e., your list seems to have at least 3 different types:
1) Original claims directly from the Koran ("there is no compulsion in religion")
2) Knee-jerk counter-claims to criticisms
3) General, more diffuse and broad claims about how great Islam is.
Caroline, I disagree about one point you made, about concern for brevity in the booklet. I think each point we are making, whether in the main section of demonstrating the perniciousness of Islam in its different flavors, or in the other section of Common Objections and Defenses -- each point in these sections needs to be presented as completely as possible, and concerns for brevity should take a back seat. It is too distracting to have "nestled" text and links prompting the reader elsewhere. Such supplementary cues should be only for materials that are secondary, and we shouldn't consign anything primary to places that are not visible on the front burner -- even if some individual points take more than a page. On the Internet, space doesn't matter as much, since it's so easy to navigate. In a physical booklet, the reader can simply flip and skip pages if he wants to.
libbysmom (oh my - another insomniac!): "The only thing worse than not having such a book would be having a flawed book which would be easy to disprove in such an argument."
I agree. In fact, I would take a page from Wikipedia here and open any particular "rebuttal"/counterargument to revision/debate from other posters, including Muslims. (and why not? This isn't about propoganda but about genuine debate).
55. The concept of infidels as najis is just a Shia thing.:-)
TV/remote: "The list of Objections you've come up with is virtually complete."
Can't be. We've barely touched on any of the usual tu quoque arguments, e.g.. There must be a goldmine there (just think of all the debates we've seen here). There's also the whole science in the Koran matter as well as claims about what Islam contributed to human history (IP mentioned the zero but there's alot more requiring rebuttal).
I definitely like your idea of subdividing the types of arguments/counterarguments.
"each point in these sections needs to be presented as completely as possible, and concerns for brevity should take a back seat"
OK. I can see that. I was just thinking in terms of people printing stuff out to have on hand but I agree that quality should take precedence over concerns about quantity for any given topic.
Caroline, Eisenhund's idea of a glossary is not just brilliant, but a necessary footnote section. After all, it's those terms that Muslims use, which if assumed to be taken the way we infidels understand it, would actually make many sections of the Quran look pretty innocuous, and worse, out of context. However, if one substitutes Mohammedan meanings to these standard terminology, then it's easier to spell out. TV, you might want to make sure that you do instant substitutions of such terms in your dissertations when you are compiling your material. Incidentally, I tried checking that site I recommended for any references to Infidels as filthy, but didn't find any. Archimedes might know better, but I think you'd need to fish in a hadith to see whether it exists in order to demonstrate that Sunni theology also endorses that 'najis' view - the Quranic references may not be there.
P.S. You guys made my day, er night. Generally, on weekends, I hardly get the time to post during the day, and just get to post late comments during the night, but since the entire US is asleep, nothing much seems to move. Also, one would expect comments to be pouring in from Europe, Israel, India, Australia, et al, but that doesn't start before 6:00AM EDT. With me, it's not insomnia - who'd want to sleep when something this fascinating is going on?
remote,
"The Ali Sina essay is too discursive and expansive, and it is too distracted by links elsewhere. Everything central should be IN the presentation, not linked elsewhere."
"It depends on the goal, and the project. For your lean mean booklet, what you say applies. For an excellent on-line (where links can be used easily) introduction, Sina's 3-page essay fits the bill.
"Your site looks good, but your apprently only section to deal directly with Muslim violence against non-Muslims, "Islam vs. Disbelievers", seems to have only one example from Sura 9 -- that seems odd; you'd think Sura 9 and all its violent verses would be the poster child for that particular section."
False. You missed it. See The Goal of Islam, which covers loads of violence.
""Also, you have a section there on the "Shia Ruling: Non-Muslims are unclean (najis)"
But I believe, like most of the supposedly exclusively Shiite blemishes, they are clearly based in the Koran, and the ancient Sunni spin against Shia is now being used against Infidels, when Sunnis deflect most criticism by saying, "Oh, that's a Shia thing" (e.g., Muta, Taqiyya, and Infidels as Najis). I believe Infidels equated with "filth ("najis") is in the Koran -- so that fact should be clearly stated in your section, I think."
Again, you are making comments without having read the whole section. I do cite the verse 9:28, which calls the non-Muslims unclean, in that section. That "najis things" quote addresses the "Shia are moderate" argument. Nevertheless, your point has some validity and I will make that issue more clear in that section.
The Resources section is a reference for critics of Islam. They can copy the material and do what they want with it. The goal of the Resources section is not the same as the booklet idea; rather, it is a step between the raw materials and the finished product--be the finished product an article, a booklet, a post in an internet discussion, or quotes for emails or letters to the editor of news media outlets. It is an on-going project, updated and modified as often as I can work on it.
Folks,
Great work. I will try to post something on arguments and counterarguments if it has not already been posted above.
Archimedes, thanks - looks like you read my mind, and are the real 'prophet' ;->
TV, I stand corrected - there's your verse that proves that it ain't just the Shi'ite (pun on words, or else, I'd have used 'Shia') concept.I'll do an interim summary of what I think the booklet should have, based on everyone's suggestions above.
Topics organized by category (e.g., women, slavery, imperialism, hate, rape, terrorism, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience). I don't think there should be more than about 8-10 topics.
Example (of one topic's treatment)
1. Imperialism
-careful selection of Koran, Hadith, Sira quotes.
-Islamic law (key rulings)
-Islamic history (key examples)
-Present-day actions and policies
-Future concerns
-Proposed solutions
Each topic can be dealt with in this manner.
The glossary of key terms could be provided using footnotes.
The arguments (perhaps in a myth vs fact format) can be added either at the end of each section, or in a completely separate part.
It will not be possible to address every argument/counter-argument in a brief booklet, but some carefully-chosen, generalized, popular ones should be included.
Otherwise, the argument/counter-argument list is a project in its own right.
This compilation, by subject, from the author of The Profit of Doom is absolutely brilliant, especially when I need to reference something quickly to answer some dhimmwit on talk-back radio.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes.aspx?g=405&i=4526
Infidel Pride & Archimedes,
Thanks for the 9:28 reference. I assume the word "unclean" translates "najis"? And is it the only place in the Koran where "najis" is used? (Those are the kinds of questions we need to nail down in a booklet.)
In the anti-Islam chat rooms at Paltalk, which I have surveyed for a year now, there are some participants who seem to be Middle Eastern, possibly ex-Muslim, and very knowledgeable about Islam (I say "seem to be" only because in chat rooms, one can never know for sure -- although I implicitly trust these particular ones).
One of these participants explicitly said that the Shia doctrine of Infidels as "najis" is straight out of the Koran and that all Muslims believe this.
Another of these participants on another occasion referred to the "najis" in the Koran and said it does not merely mean "unclean", but that it is stronger, and that "filthy" or "repugnant" are more appropriate translations. The prevalence of "unclean" in English translations of the Koran, therefore, could well be taqiyya (or naivete), as "unclean" has the tonality of the more neutral sense where anthropologists would say, "Oh, it's just a common religious sensibility, like having 'sacred space' contrasted with 'profane space', etc.". But "filth" is a deeper, darker pathos clearly indicative of hatred and pathological revulsion.
P.S.: For my "mixed review" of the anti-Islam rooms at Paltalk, see my blog entry:
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/08/paltalk-mixed-review.html
Caroline,
"We've barely touched on any of the usual tu quoque arguments, e.g.. There must be a goldmine there (just think of all the debates we've seen here)."
That high quantity you are thinking of might be due to thinking of each and every argument as a category in its own right, rather than as a subcategory. While I was opposed to brevity, it was in terms of how we deal with primary points: we should also have a ranking system whereby secondary points under subcategories get less frontal space (and can be linked away).
"There's also the whole science in the Koran matter as well as claims about what Islam contributed to human history (IP mentioned the zero but there's alot more requiring rebuttal)."
This is a good example of what I referred to above. We need to pick 2 or 3 of the most common claims in this particular category ("Islam as the Great Cultivator of Science and Philosophy"), and not devote primary space to all of the claims out there related to this.
TV,
1. Yes, we need to reduce those arguments down to some general principles.
2. Re "uncleanness": I think this is about as close as Islam gets to being a racist doctrine. If you substitute "Aryan blood" for Islamic purity/cleanness, there you have an analogy to the Nazi racial supremacism construct. Islam of course has all kinds of nasty superstitions about not touching disbelievers, staying away from things that have been touched by disbelievers, and so on. On the other hand, all of these taboos can be waived if the Muslim is carrying out an act that is in the interests of Islam's ultimate goal. It is the intention and the purpose, with respect to Islam, that counts. The scheme is just this: If an action or expression good for Islam, then it's acceptable.
Those people on the Paltalk are correct. The concept of "uncleanness" is directly out of the Koran and is a pervasive concept like mischief, etc. In fact, most of these concepts pertaining to disobedience in or disbelief of Islam all overlap substantially. Basically, they mean evil/sin/crime, and are opposed conceptually to good/virtue/lawful. Knowingly and intentionally going against Islam is what angers 'Allah' (and the majority of Muslims) the most.
I've added a number of verses re "unclean" and related concepts, as per your suggestion.
Like mischief/corruption, there are varying degrees of transgression under the uncleanness concept. Translators of the Koran, as well as respected mainsteam tafsirs, do use terms like "abomination," "filthy," and "vile" in some places to describe non-Muslims and hypocrites.
Regarding the Arabic translation, there are indeed different terms that get translated as unclean. The most well-known is 9:28, which uses "najasun," which I gather literally means something like "the unclean ones." Verses 9:95 uses "rijsun"; 6:125 uses "alrrijsa"; 8:37 uses "alkhabeetha" ...there are various terms to describe something that is sinful or evil, wicked, etc., and these are translated sometimes as "unclean".
Another suggestion about the booklet:
I cannot stress the importance of this enough: we have to demonstrate that the offending passages in the Koran and Hadith are understood by Muslims to be
a) valid for all time
b) inerrant
c) literal
A demonstration of this for any particular passage would best be both --
1) intra-textual (i.e., the eternal validity, inerrancy and literalistic reading would be supported directly somewhere in the Koran itself)
2) in the words and external behavior of Muslims themselves
a) in history
b) in laws
c) in current events.
SandiM,
Be careful with the Prophet of Doom quotations. The author is knowledgeable but he has taken an unusual approach and has basically added his own translation, sometimes removing, adding, or changing words, without indicating when and where he is doing so. Generally his meanings look accurate to me, but if you try to use those materials in a debate, your opponent is going to cry foul because of the changes in the translation.
Big one I left out:
56. The problem is Islamo-fascism, not Islam
TV & Caroline
When I mentioned the number system, I was alluding to the fact that because of the misnomer of 'Arabic numerals' (some versions of British accounts of this called it Hindu or Hindu-Arabic numerals), Muslims had appropriated the entire number system, not just the zero.
That's the problem with every translation of the Quran that exists to date. When one sees terms like mischief, corruption, hypocrite, these words don't look like they translated cleanly. After all, what does one think of when one hears the word mischief? Something like one's toddler climbing upon the kitchen countertop and pouring salt out of the salt shaker onto the butter.Similarly, which infidel would hear the word 'justice', and translate that to the willingness to endorse the shehada? Or hear the term 'hypocrite' - which in English implies one with a double standard that's favorable to oneself and unfavorable to others - and interpret that as the refusal to submit to Allah? The correct term for 'hypocrite' should be heathen, or dis-believer.
Archimedes
I thought najis was purely Farsi. Is 'najasun' an Arabic term that has a very close meaning?
remote,
Re (c) literal, the Koran itself (3:7) says some verses are clear whereas others are allegorical. Verse 3:7 cautions against interpretation of the allegorical verses, or at the very least puts restrictions on that and says that believers should stick to following the clear verses. Ibn Kathir, in commenting on 3:7, suggests that the allegorical verses should be interpreted in light of the clear verses.
Thus, it's not so simple as saying the verses should be interpreted literally (how, after all, could Muslims derive general principles of conduct if not by abstracting at least somewhat). Rather, where there are clear commands, admonitions, instructions for actual words and deeds, these should (and often must) be followed.
Infidel Pride,
I'm basically following the translators on their use of the word "unclean" and related concepts. I don't know Arabic or Farsi, just a few Arabic words from the Koran that I've tried to nail down. Beyond that, I trust the professional translations most of the time, but I check them against at least two tafsirs to make sure I've got the meaning straight. There's no question that people like Sistani are using a concept of "unclean" as straight out of the Koran and Hadith.
A few thoughts: I see the point both Archimedes and TV are making about subsuming the topics under some sort of oraganizational structure. Archimedes adds that "The arguments (perhaps in a myth vs fact format) can be added either at the end of each section, or in a completely separate part". But with that latter point I'm afraid you're losing me somewhat.
I did a bit of googling around the various sites - some Ali Sina debates, anwering-islam, checked out the prophet of doom site etc and it seems to me that all this material is already out there so I'm wondering what it is we hope to improve on? Following Cathkins original suggestion, isn't it accessibility of a very simple sort? So that when one encounters a very typical argument, say, Muslims invented the number system, one could find an instant and pointed rebuttal to that narrow point. If you start subsuming such an argument into an entire essay on False historical Muslim claims, then I wonder if such an essay isn't already out there. And if you take away the format of "typical argument and counterargument" and put it at the end or even in a separate section, then I'm not sure how the manual would function as a user frinedly guide to debate in a manner that would improve on what's already out there. In other words, I see some advantages in breaking this up into much smaller segments that go straight to the "typical argument" (there would obviously be some overlap but that would simply derive from the fact that sometimes one is looking for a broad rebuttal and sometimes for something very specific). However, it seems pretty central that the format itself actually adheres to the kind of format where one would look at an index to find the specific argument one is seeking to respond to.
remote: "Another suggestion about the booklet:
I cannot stress the importance of this enough: we have to demonstrate that the offending passages in the Koran and Hadith are understood by Muslims to be
a) valid for all time
b) inerrant
c) literal"
This would seem to me to fall under a "typical" argument of the sort, "Islam simply needs to undergo a "reformation" like Christianity. (btw - Infidel Pride - number 57.!) How many times have you seen that "typical argument"? Too many times to count probably. And what is the typical counterargument? Just what you said. The counterargument is that Islam is not susceptible to a reformation like Christianity because unlike the Bible, the Koran is the literal word of God transmitted directly to Muhammad through Gabriel. Hence, it cannot really be changed. And what is the "typical" argument in response to that claim? (Isn't it usually something about Ijtihad ala Manji?) And what is the "typical counterargument" to that claim?
See what I'm getting at here? I'm thinking along very basic lines here - the sort of simplistic format that would inform your average person either engaging in debate on line or heading off to a local "interfaith dialogue" of the central claims and counterclaims. Because if it gets extremely complex and isn't layed out in a very simple form of typical arguments and typical counterarguments, then aren't we just going to recreate the complexity of what is already out there and already available online at many good sites for those who are willing to take the time to do a good deal of reading? Or is there going to be something about our organization of this material that is going to improve on what's out there in terms of its accessibility to those who will be debating these issues?
Television" "That high quantity you are thinking of might be due to thinking of each and every argument as a category in its own right, rather than as a subcategory. While I was opposed to brevity, it was in terms of how we deal with primary points: we should also have a ranking system whereby secondary points under subcategories get less frontal space (and can be linked away)."
I do agree with that but I could still see organizing it very simply under "typical arguments"
The broadest tu quoque category would be along the lines of
Typical Argument #58: All religions have a history of violence
Counterargument: would explain the logical fallacy of tu quoque and would also point out that no other religion specifically mandates violence against unbelievers like islam does. Possible nested tu quoque arguments:
Typical argument #59: The Old testament is as violent as the Koran. The typical counterargument then is that Christians follow the New testament. The typical counterarguemnt to that is a brief statement by Jesus in the NT that he has come to fulfill the old laws or something to that effect. What is the typical counterargument to that claim?
Typical argument #60 : There have been Christian extremists like Timothy McVeigh and bombers of abortion clinics and the IRA and Hitler and so on and so on. Followed by typical counterarguments...etc.
Please note - I am still merely brainstorming here - throwing out ideas for consideration.
Are we trying to produce a booklet? Or are we trying to produce something of an adjunct site to this one along the lines of "A handbook for infidel debaters"? I recall seeing comments some time back requesting of the site that it provide an easily accessible guide along the lines of debating Islam 101. I see no reason why such an adjunct site can't be both simple but also extremely rigorous in its claims. There is also the possibility of cross linking to other typical related arguments, as in see also # 47 and #56.
I like the idea raised by both Archimedes and TV that each point should be buttressed by current events. Actually, that would be pretty easy to do by simply linking to many JW/DW articles to illustrate the veracity of the claims.
IP - re the glossary recommended by Eisenhund. Good idea. But also many of those Orwellian meanings would emerge in the context of rebutting typical arguments, e.g. that Islam forbids taking innocent life. That would lead to an exploration of the term "innocent". Ditto with Islam means peace". (and by cross-linking to other arguments, as in "see #'s X,Y and z", one would easily compile an Orwellian glossary of sorts, of Islamic terms).
Caroline,
"it seems to me that all this material is already out there so I'm wondering what it is we hope to improve on?"
The problem is that the information is scattered all over the place, in several websites; it is overlapping in confusing ways; and it is incomplete.
The booklet would serve the function of having a complete reference for all the main
1) criticisms
and
2) responses to criticisms.
There needs to be one place for us Infidels to go to for the front-line fight.
For further waxing dialogues that are more in-depth and scholarly, we can always go dipping deeper into all these myriad websites with their rich and confusing complexities.
I'm a reasonably intelligent guy with 7 years of college education and many years of heavy reading in philosophy and history: and I find the present state of the sources of information on Islam to be way too taxing, disparate, confusing and scattered for my purposes every time I need to state a case, or rebut a claim or counter-claim.
And for over a year, I've seen the way that people on Paltalk and here (when Muslims or Leftists come in to stir the pot) respond -- and it is mostly inferior: fix or six people muster their forces and shoot off confusing fireworks of rebuttal, along with scads of links all over the damn place. This is intolerable. We need a single reference for the front line. The lines behind that front line can be more relaxed and long-winded and "nestled". But not the front line.
Caroline,
this is such a good idea. I hope we can all help out with creating this book, as it would be such a valuable resource for us all.
I have a question, though - instead of coming back to this thread to work on details, is there any way to arrange to contact each other via email? I'm not sure if it's a good idea to post my email address here, but I don't mind if others are going to do so. Alternately, perhaps Mr. Spencer could pass along our email addresses to each other? I know I don't mind having the regulars with whom I am familiar having access to my email, and it certainly would make life easier for all of us who wish to work on this booklet.
remote/TV - agreed. It shouldn't be so damned hard to muster an iron clad response to any of the dozens upon dozens of Islamic apologist/taqiyya claims that get hurled, here and elsewhere - on the web and in TV and radio interviews - on a daily basis. By the same token, the arguments and counter-arguments should be extremely accessible to the average person (i.e. 'Here's what you ask/say when apologist/taqiyya expert says x,y,z (and never ask a question you don't already know the answer to!'). Someone needs to decide on a taxonomy of topics and then different posters need to volunteer to bite off one each and then google extensively, trying to break down the topic into a clear summary of the major arguments and counterarguments that are already out there among many excellent sites. If there are ambiguities that the person doesn't know how to handle, then they would need to seek guidance from other posters here, or from Robert or Hugh. So how do we proceed to finalize a taxonomy of topics? And how do we continue this conversation/project after this thread gets buried?
Libbysmom - you read my mind! How are we going to proceed with this project once the thread is buried? Frankly, we need every volunteer we can get and if we move it to a private email forum then it will just come down to a handful of us (frankly I just got over such a private project that went nowhere. I did my part but noone else stepped up to the plate and so it went nowhere and I put in alot of time and effort for naught). Is it possible that Spencer could refrain from closing off comments to this thread in 6 days? Because its a pretty simple matter to link directly to this thread (you right click on the date/time of the post and then copy and paste it into another thread just like any link. If Spencer kept it open, we could target certain regular posters when they show up on regular threads and say, Hey - come check out this thread. Want to lend a hand? In fact, all we'd have to do is post the link once in any thread and anyone following that thread might come check out the "ongoing project". That's one idea at least. It keeps the project here at JW, where I think more people would be willing to work at it then if we hustled it off to somewhere else. Just my intuition about how people think...
One thing you left out in your list of categorizations:
4) Using ethnic or cultural motives to explain away claims that are made about Muslims (e.g. Female Genital Mutiliation is practised only in Africa. Whoops, Caroline, #61.), as well as using cultural/regional attributes to lull people suspicious of Islam into a false sense of security (see my #46 to 50 above).
I agree that something that is handy, like the skeptics annotated Quran, would be helpful. It's a lot more 'readable' than the USC links to various hadiths, and having a quick reference rebuttal (call it 'Refuting Islam for dummies') is what this should be to avoid duplicating the intensive work done by FaithFreedom, Islam-Watch, et al.
Caroline
As far as contacting each other goes, Archimedes has his section in Islam-watch.com, while TV has his blog. I don't mean to suggest intruding, but that would sound like a good way to initiate contact with them, without involving Robert or getting them to put an e-mail out here.
As for the glossary idea, I guess it comes down to at which stage do we refute one's contendtion about the Quran. If we insert a glossary, one gets to abort/pre-emptively destroy any argument about any virtuous content of the Quran. If we don't, we simply have to get to it later when refuting it, which could potentially distract from any other central point being discussed.
Either sounds fine to me. The more the merrier though. I can think of a number of folks off the top of my head - Yojimbo, Interested, americaningermany, Eisenhund, nariz, alarmed pig farmer, freewoman, Frank, Steven L, DP111, biorabbi, Eliyahu - whom we could try to recruit to the cause. Although I guess it makes sense to see how many topics we wind up with first. The ideal goal would seem to be one topic per person.
BTW - anyone else notice that Profitsbeard posted here almost every single day on almost every single thread for well over a year (formerly under the name BigSleep) and then one day just abruptly disappeared? I hope something terrible and sudden didn't happen to the guy.
Yes, profitsbeard has gone missing. Grannyweatherwax is another I miss, although she posts at Rebecca Bynom's site- can't remember what it's called.
More good writers:
ala-sux
dcwatson, if he's interested
how about thetexican?
and pig farmer
momof4
susanp
If we take this to either email or to another forum, do you think that mr. Spencer would post a link on his homepage?
And you can use my gmail address, just think about it.
Re: a place for us to congregate to work on this project: I will simply create a new blog at Blogspot (it's very quick and easy).
I will try to do this in the next couple of days, hopefully by Tuesday night. Then I will link it here (or if this is closed, I will link it briefly in one of the top posts at Jihad watch or Dhimmi watch around that time).
Infidel Pride, your suggestion about the cultural argument seems to me to fall into the "knee-jerk reaction" #2 category.
Although we all are probably impatient to see this come to fruition, I think we should be patient about taking the necessary time to plan the "taxonomy" or structure of the booklet before we actually start working on finding the materials and content for it. We might have some disagreements, and we need to work those out.
I like the idea of each of us taking a portion of the work to do.
I miss Profitsbeard as well, as well as SomethingaboutIslam. I think they are simply going through a phase where they are too busy for any time to spend here.
Thanks TV. I'll keep an eye out for the link.
Folks, Re: "Handbook" project,
I have just posted this as a topic at http://www.islam-watch.org/ in the Forum, "Comments on Current Affair" section, see "Handbook for infidel debaters". We can get started there, effective immediately.
Signing up is very easy; it only takes about 2 minutes.
...and I should add that once you sign in, you'll also have your own Inbox, so that we can exchange messages. As with most sites, this is free, no cost.
Don't forget Mohideen Imbramsha's reference site. He always references this site as proof of accuracy for his thoughts.
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=gabriel+paradise+hell&translator=3&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
Archimedes
Thanks - I just set it up, under this name itself <helps to preserve ones fake identity ;->. What format does the e-mail follow (e.g. infidelpride@islam-watch.org?), or can one only exchange messages with other forum members?
TV
I agree with you re: patience - I for one am not in so much of a hurry to get this done, as opposed to making sure that it gets done right. Having said that, is the taxonomy something that we must settle, or is it okay if we in parallel start working on responses to various topics listed above, and roll that into whatever sub-divisions we ultimately agree upon?
Caroline/Libbysmom
Any suggestions as to how we should split up this work between us?
I'm signed in at the new site now.
IP - I could see some advantage in deciding the taxonomy first in that then we could stand back and say, right, now we need exactly x number of people to each grab one of these topics and we could do it all at once. Without doing that first it might be difficult to guage the precise level of generality vs specificity with which to approach each topic, since we wouldn't have determined yet whether the topic required subcategories. Another issue I was thinking about was whether we might not want to avoid including topics such as Science in the Koran (I saw a debate where Ali Sina did a good job of covering this) because I'm not sure its relevant to infidels, i.e. I assume the concern here isn't to debate Muslims out of their faith by pointing out the nonsense in the Koran (as is Ali Sina's intention) - but rather primarily to give tools to infidels to counter Islam apologists/taqiyya masters in terms of the dangers to infidels that Islam and its spread represents. So, from that perspective, the exaggeration of Islam's historic contributions to science WOULD be relevant as that exaggeration seeks to obscure the paucity of culture that follows in Islam's wake and which DOES have implications for infidels. I guess that's something we'll need to decide though when we create the taxonomy. But the purpose of the handbook would theoretically drive the taxonomy. (e.g. Sina's arguments seem designed to focus on proving the falsehood of the faith to Muslims themselves, while from what I can see, answering-islam seeks to prove the superiority of christianity to islam. Our goal may be somewhat different than those goals and the taxonomy and choice of topics would presumably represent that.)
I agree with this. Reforming Islam, or persuading Muslims to jettison Islam, which may be the goals of FaithFreedom and Islam-Watch, isn't our goal: rather, our goal is to provide Infidels (and ex-Muslims can use this to their advantage as well) with rebuttal points about Islam, particularly re: its stance vis a vis Infidels. For instance, the trend of Islamic conquerors to convert churches and temples into mosques affected Infidels deeply, and would be relevant to the topic at hand. OTOH, the claim that Mohammed cut the moon into half is completely irrelevant from an Infidel standpoint, since it by itself has no effect on Infidels.
Also, while I think highly of Christianity despite not being one, the fact is that every religion, including several major cults, are superior to Islam, so we should be clear that the goal isn't to establish any one faith as the alternative (every debater can confidently bat with his/her own faith in the background depending on the environment), but to demonstrate that Islam is a threat to the rest of the world, as it stands (a fact emphatically underscored by Steve Centanni's conversion at swordpoint). It is useful to combat tu-quoque arguments about Christianity and Judaism, and should others come up about Islam vis a vis Hinduism or Shintoism, that should be taken up as well (I added 62: Islam doesn't have a caste system, as Hinduism does. The answer, in case you're interested, is FALSE, particularly not only in India, but in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well, where Hindu influence was supposedly eradicated).
I've posted the 62 points we've listed above on the islam-watch forum itself, so that we can take things from there. As it is, this thread is getting to the bottom of the pile, so I'll make this my last comment in this thread.
http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/ShowThread.aspx?PostID=184#184
IP - you couldn't have picked better examples of what I had in mind in my previous post - Muhammad cutting the moon in half vs. what would go under a rebuttal to the standard Muslim aplogist argument that "Islam respects all religious traditions" or something like that. (And the particular point you raise - the treatment of other religions' holy spaces - might merit an entire subargument, which is why I think establishing the taxonomy first would be useful in the sense of does one make a brief statement about that as part of a larger point? Or is that point important enough to merit an entire more detailed subthread? I would argue for the latter in the case of the particular example you cite, because there's so very much evidence to adduce there).
Thank you for posting that lengthy list of arguments at the new site (that was a fun way to spend a Saturday night, wasn't it?:-)). This will also be my last comment here before moving over there.
Believe it or not I only got my copy of PIG several weeks ago and haven't finished reading it. I was broke for several years (until about 6 weeks ago) and couldn't afford books and IMHO the internet is the poor man's library (worth the price of any college education). It was the first book I ordered when I got my hands on some cash (to take on my first vacation in several years!). But when I started reading it, it was quickly apparent to me that I already knew all this, just from following this and other sites and the news for several years. However, there is no doubt that Spencer provides the format that we're essentially trying to reproduce here. My first task when I come to the new site will be to lay out all of the PIG's "PC myths" to see how they compare to the list we already compiled. Are we going to recreate the PIG online? Add much more detail to much of its content? Add entire subsections that are missing altogether? Make more of an effort to hunt down what would likely be the typical counterarguments to the main PC myths in the PIG and try to respond to those? (I am struck by the number of general Muslim comments I have seen around the web to the effect that Spencer is lying. Spencer is misrepresenting everything. The arguments in PIG are admittedly very general. It would be interesting to try to locate all the substantive counterarguments on the web and try to consolidate them. Still, the fact as Spencer claims remains the same - noone will debate the details. Mayne we need to focus on digging up those details amd counterclaims and see if we can find rebuttals to these claims that are presumably out there.) Well, we can discuss all that at the new site. And I'm getting ahead of myself.
But before moving there, I would like to address a question to Hugh, who started this thread with his post "Needed: A handbook for infidel debaters" and his statement, "But no such Handbook for Infidel Debaters exists."
And I want to ask Hugh - why did you say that? Isn't the PIG essentially a Handbook for Infidel Debators? How should we try to improve on that as a handbook for infidel debators? Do you mean that there's no such accessible handbook online? Or that the PIG is too general and too introductory and needs to be hashed out in great detail? Or that it is missing too many important subtopics?
In short, Hugh - you can see what your post has led to. What are your final thoughts about where several posters here are heading? Any input? Or even Mr Spencer - a penny for your thoughts? Recommendations?
Caroline
Speaking for myself, I don't think we're 'headed' there i.e. leaving Jihad Watch for Islam-Watch. Instead, we have a workplace to put this together (think a Yahoo!groups, but without any potential interference or harassment due to Muslim complaints), and once we're done, we'd certainly reference that work here. Point is - JihadWatch weblogs aren't a workspace to put such projects together. If they want to sometime make it that, it would be another thing.
I haven't read PIG myself - it's not in any library, nor is it in any bookstore (I don't know whether it's out of spite for Robert, since I have found his other 3 books there, and read them). But from his previous works, while Robert does a good job covering dhimmitude in Islam Unveiled and Islamic militancy in Onward Muslim Soldiers, in his book The myth about Islamic tolerance, I found coverage by his contributing partners (since he mainly edited the book, rather than wrote it himself) of Islamic persecution very spotty. (On this one, feel free to put it down to a subconscious level of bias on my part, since talking about Islamic intolerance without describing their 800 year history of barbarism against Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs is like trying to describe the excesses of Nazism without touching on the holocaust of Jews.) I do hope to get hold of it sometime, as well as his forthcoming book on Muhammad.
Since you are reading PIG, do you find it addressing most of the points enumerated in this thread?
(okay I lied - not my last post on this thread after all..)
IP- I can't get onto the new site for now. I'm waiting for them to email me my password (assuming that's the problem). I made it so simple but I am a complete technological idiot and manage to screw up the simplest things while at the same time I can manage to navigate a new software program if you just give me the manual). Sigh. In any case, while I am waiting to figure out how I could have possibly screwed up something so simple, I typed up all the "PC myths" from the table of contents of the PIG. Here it is:
1.We can negotiate with these people.
2.The Qur’an teches peace and tolerance
3.The Qur’an teaches believers to take up arms only in self-defense
4.The Qur’an and the Bible are equally violent
5.Islam’s war teaching are only a tiny element of the religion
6.Islam is a ROP that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists
7.Islam is a tolerant faith
8.Historically the dhimma wasn’t so bad
9.Jews had it better in Muslim lands than in Christian Europe
10.Dhimmitude is a thing of the past
11.Islam values pre-Islamic cultures in Muslim countries
12.Islam respects and honors women
13.Islam forbids the killing of the innocent
14.Islam was once the foundation of a great cultural and scientific flowering
15.Early Muslims had no bellicose designs on neighboring lands
16.The native Christians of the Middle East and North Africa welcomed the Muslims as liberators
17.Early jihad warriors were merely defending Muslim lands from their non-Muslim neighbors
18.Christianity and Islam spread in pretty much the same way
19.The Crusades were pretty much an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world
20.The Crusades were an early example of the West’s predatory imperialism
21.The Crusades were fought by Westerners greedy for gain
22.The Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force
23.The Crusades established European colonies in the Middle east
24.The capture of Jerusalem was unique in medieval history and caused Muslim mistrust of the west
25.The Muslim leader Saladin was more merciful and magnanimous than the Crusaders
26.Crusades were called against Jews in addition to Muslims
27.The Crusades were bloodier than the Islamic jihads
28.The Crusades accomplished nothing
29.The problem the world faces today is religious fundamentalism
Not all of it is phrased in terms of PC myths, however. For example, Chapter 6 is called "Islamic Law: Lie, Steal and Kill". The chapter subheadings are:
Lying: It's wrong-except when it isn't
Theft: It all depends on who you're stealing from
Murder: It all depends on whom you're killing
Universal moral values? Can't find them
PC myth: Islam forbids the killing of innocents
Looking at the list of 29 above you can see it focuses heavily on Jihad, dhimmitude and the Crusades.
From what I can tell so far I think you're quite correct that it gives little coverage to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikkhs. Also, as far as I can tell, little or no substance to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, for example, which as Steven L I think rightly pointed out early in the thread, is a major issue to treat as those arguments come up so often from the Islamic apologists.
Nevertheless, the PIG addresses (as you can see by the list above) many of the standard apologist arguments (again - in a general way). You may have not read the PIG but I haven't read the other books. However, as I said, I already know everything in the PIG. Most of the standard arguments it addresses are there, in a general form (and as I said, just reading this site and the news and some other sites, these arguments were already totally clear to me). But perhaps what is missing is the very rigorous detail to each point and claim as well as a rigorous consideration and rebuttal of the counterpoints (because the counterpoints aren't presented. What is presented is the original PC myth and then the general rebuttal that we're quite familiar with. So maybe what we need to do is wander way out there and seek to dig up deeper apologetic claims and address those (or merely acknowledge them if they are correct).
But given that the PIG does address many of these issues from the perspective of the infidel debator, I do think its a reasonable question to ask of Hugh, especially, what he had in mind when he recommended the need for a handbook for infidel debators. Isn't the PIG a handbook for infidel debators? Is it insufficient for what he had in mind? And should the PIG perhpas be required reading for everyone before we embark on this project (and believe me - its a very quick read, very very accessible and you can get a very cheap used copy on Amazon as well.). Perhaps TV or Archemedes have thoughts on this issue.
Hi, Caroline and everyone, I'm not abandoning this, I've just been really busy. My oldest child is starting university on Wednesday and we've been filling out forms, buying books, and I've been trying not to take potshots at people telling him that he needs to be "orientated", or even better, "advisored". God help us all, the Queen's English is certainly suffering at the hands of educators today. Sigh- that's another rant, entirely OT.
I'll check back in here on Wednesday.