The aim of the A.I.M. should be an A.I.M.

The first "A.I.M." refers to the "Anti-Islam Movement" which, alas, remains inchoate.

The second "A.I.M." of my title refers to an "Anti-Islam Manual" which the first A.I.M. should produce now (indeed, it should already have produced it years ago).

In a subsequent article, I will argue in greater detail in defense of the urgent exigency for such a Manual.

Today, I offer one typical example of the deficiency of its conspicuous absence:

Reason #7324 for why the anti-Islam movement needs an Anti-Islam Manual:

In an article on Gates of Vienna, according to their Dutch correspondent Penseur who translated an article on the website of the PVV (the political party of Geert Wilders), a "jihad expert" there (further invoking apparently another "jihad expert" -- "in the intelligence world" no less), claims that:

“The Koran prescribes that before you are going to attack an individual, a country or a region, you should warn beforehand that you are going to attack, and that the target still gets some time to convert."

However (as is common about assertions about the Koran), this apparently derives from the Hadiths, not directly and explicitly from the Koran -- specifically (though probably not solely, since there often are some repetitions in the Hadiths) Sahih Muslim 4294, according to this article by Robert Spencer.

And in this other article by Robert Spencer about another "invitation to Islam" (this time by the rarely honest Muslim Anjem Choudary to the Queen of England), Spencer again quotes the same hadith by Sahih Muslim, and only adds that it "restates and elaborates upon Qur'an 9:29" -- though it is fairly clear from the wording of that Koran verse that the "invitation to Islam" meme is only implicit, not explicit, as it is in the hadith.

(We may fault Spencer for a lot of things, but his basic knowledge of Islam is sound, and had there existed a Koranic reference substantiating this "invitation to Islam" meme, he would have cited it front and center, rather than a quote from Sahih Muslim -- the latter time only appending a notation of an indirect influence from the Koran and not any explicit example from the Koran.)

If the movement had at its fingertips a digital Anti-Islam Manual, any one of us could punch in the question and in a matter of mere seconds come up with this particular piece of information with its indisputable reference citation (and believe me, there is a thousand more where that comes from, most of them at least as equally vital, if not more so, for our War of Ideas). It took me about a half an hour to find the sources for this information in this article -- and I began by already knowing something was amiss and had a vague sense of how to begin to search (and even my presentation here is insufficient, for I have not provided the direct link to a credible version of the primary source. Sahih Muslim 4294). And needless to say, my response-time demonstrated here would be sorely insufficient in the context of a debate with Islam apologists where you have to think -- and respond -- on your feet in seconds.

In addition, our digital Anti-Islam Manual would also prepare us, at that juncture, for the expected tap-dance maneuver by our Islam apologist trying to argue that the hadith is "not authentic": again, we would punch in "sahih muslim authenticity" and in seconds be able to produce all the irrefutable documentation (Islamic historians, Islamic scholars and jurists, rulings of fiqh, scholars of Islam, etc.) demonstrating otherwise. And any further tap-dance maneuvers would be similarly, deftly and expediently humiliated -- as, for example, another typical maneuver in this context: "Well, we Muslims follow the Koran, not the Hadiths." Again: punch in "sunna hadiths koran" and in seconds we will possess the irrefutable proof of the equal importance of the hadiths (if not, indeed, arguably higher importance) compared with the Koran for Muslims.

Over a relatively brief period of time of discussions, debates, seminars, colloquiums, round-tables, TV or radio interviews, etc., we would begin to witness the deliciously pleasing spectacle of one after another Islam apologist (whether a clever snake of a Muslim or a clueless dupe of a non-Muslim) finally and pathetically tire of his tap-dancing evasions and obfuscations which, currently, and for years now, they have been able to deploy successfully, with the indefatigable and distracting agility of a Gregory Hines or a Sammy Davis, Jr.

Further Reading:

An Infidel's Enchiridion: A Proposal

Fitna is good propaganda, but we still need an Anti-Islamic Manual

We Don't Need 1,001 "Islam 101"s

Why We Need an Anti-Islam Manual