"Just the facts, Mo'ammed"

The Counter-Jihad movement (not yet a movement -- but that's another story, for another day) still desperately needs an Anti-Muslim Manual (AIM).

To be done right, this AIM would have to be created by a team of individuals, at least some of them experts in various related fields and languages, whose efforts should be funded (unless we were lucky enough to find such a team willing to spend hundreds of hours of their time for no pay; which is rather improbable and should not be expected). 

As for the content of the AIM, there would be an ingenious way to flesh it out thematically: simply conduct a somewhat devious R-&-D phase where various individuals, acting as "plants" so to speak, would engage various Islamopologists of different flavors in lengthy debates. The real purpose of these "debates" would not be to really debate, but rather to record the assertions/claims/responses made by the Islamopologists involved. In doing so, I'd wager we will have amassed probably 50% of what we need. (This of course can also be supplemented by simply researching past debates and discussions.) 

Needless to say, this method of deriving most of the content has the advantage of getting it from those who, as Robert Spencer has remarked, seem to have their pulse on the general PC MC template out there (the very same template we need to engage and refute) -- so much so that they, as Spencer said, seem to be "reading the same memo".

Once we have amassed this complex, jagged heap of raw material, the next phase would be to organize it by topic and subtopic, and by the primary bifurcation into 1) Claims for How Great Islam Is vs. 2) Defenses Against Criticisms of Islam. The third phase would be the writing of Counter-Claims for #1, and Refutations of #2. Supplementing this would be Claims for How Bad Islam Is not covered by our Counter-Claims. 

In tandem with this third phase would be the meticulous and scrupulous tracking down of adequate source citations (ideally supplying primary sources for each point, augmented by at least two secondary sources).

Phase Four would be the editing process, where the organization of all the text is tightened up usefully subdivided categories; setting up a digitally annotated index (a long alphabetical list as comprehensive as possible and cross-referenced, with each word or phrase a link taking the user to the relevant place); and the prose is trimmed of all fat, throwing away any needless introductions and extraneous descriptions and adjectives and anecdotes and scenarios: Mostly "Just the facts, Mo'ammed". 

A fifth phase should probably be included -- namely, a review, proofreading and editing process, perhaps integrating a wider discussion from people outside the team, for suggested additions/subtractions. It should be kept in mind, however, that this AIM would most likely not be something a consumer reads from cover to cover, like a book; but rather would be a source used by the user of the manual in his communication with his audience of one or more people. More often than not the manual user will be picking and choosing bits and pieces here and there, of varying lengths, guided by the index -- and then often leaping from one point to another that may well be not immediately adjacent in the manual. Hence the crucial digital format, where space and place practically no longer matter for a written text (not to mention that one can access needed text at lightning speed -- and for that, of course, besides the Index, the Search function would be indispensible -- and which will be much more flexibly portable, contained in a little phone or small tablet or even streamlined laptop). 

Plus, as a digital document, it would be easily revisable, and after it's deployed in the field, those initial uses would be "test runs" that might expose flaws that need correcting and fine-tuning.

Now all we need are sponsors, influential supporters, and financial backers.  Mr. Spencer...?

Further Reading:  

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