Saturday, February 04, 2017

“Be simple answerer, for we know the truth.” — King Lear, Act 3, Scene 7

http://thumbnails.cbsig.net/CBS_Production_Entertainment_VMS/2014/11/12/357014083965/CBS_PERRY_MASON_040_CONTENT_CIAN_cpd_575059_1296_1280x720_501461571547_611589_640x360.jpg

Hugh Fitzgerald, formerly Vice-President of Jihad Watch, has been posting a series there of late, based on Muslims who are going around disingenuously asking people to "Ask Me Anything".  Hugh, with cheeky wit, proposes that we Infidels take advantage of this and confront these Muslims prepared with our knowledge of Islam -- pretending to be nice and polite, but hoping to trip up those sophists with the truth.

Hugh's idea is good in theory, but oddly unrealistic.  At least two commenters on the Jihad Watch thread pointed this out (yes, there can be, at times, Signs of Intelligent Life on Planet Jihad Watch).

A long-time veteran of Jihad Watch comments, one "miriam" (an ex-Muslim from Iran) posted a long list, reproducing Hugh's questions we should pose to these Muslims, and putting in the likely prevarications and tap-dancing which those of us who've had run-ins with Muslims over the years now, all too well, would ensue.  Here's a brief sample (correcting his typos):

As an ex Muslim, let me tell you how the ” I am Muslim ask me anything" would answer to thse questions. 

1. What is the meaning of Jihad?
In Farsi they tell you Jihad kon! Means to make an effort. So Jihad is an effort!!

2. Why are Christians and Jews required to pay the Jizyah to Muslims?
This one they tell you that was the way it was centuries ago and it is no longer ib exitance.

3. Why does it say in the Qur’an that Muslims should not take Christians and Jews as friends, for they are friends only with each other?
It does not say anything like that in the Koran,
4. It says in the Qur’an that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2.256). If there is no compulsion in religion, then why are people who leave Islam threatened with death?
Anyone can convert. They are right about this because in America we do not threates converts.

5. Why did the Ayatollah Khomeini lower the marriageable age of girls to 9?
Not because Muhamad f.. her,, but those days pedophilia was common.

6. What is the surest way for a Muslim to get to Heaven?
Be kind to people.

7. Why did Muhammad attack the Jewish date farmers at the Khaybar Oasis?
Not because the Jews told him to f…off, but because it was simply a matter of war at that time.

And so forth.  Miriam was only offering typical rejoinders which a Muslim would pull out of his kitman-bag; many others are likely, and have been done in like situations.

Another commenter, one "billybob" (not sure if he's a veteran commenter at Jihad Watch) was even more on point:

Well done miriamrove. I read your piece after I made my comment below. What you are saying is exactly the kind of thing I have run into in the forums when debating with Muslims. These people will cheat and lie as fast you can can blink an eye

And:

If it were only that easy – ask the questions and back them up with the appropriate quotes and the Muslims melts into a pool of butter…
In reality, he’ll fire back … “You are taking that verse out of context”. “That comes from a weak Hadith”, “Only in time of war, sanction by the State”, “…but the Old Testament says…”, “Show me where that verse is. It’s not in the Quran”. “…but the translation from Arabic is faulty. That word really means “peace””.
Do you really think they will cave in that easy? …or at all?

Not only is billybob spot on, he only touched on the tip of the iceberg.

Don't get me wrong -- Hugh's idea, in theory, is good.  But it requires a lot more than he counsels in his breezy way.  Hugh hints at what is needed, in his introduction to his piece:

You should come prepared with a few dozen questions, to which you possess the answers, with the relevant supporting passages from the Qur’an or Hadith or Sira easily retrievable from your smartphone or notecards. 

Yes, a good idea -- but way too lightly put.  What the Counter-Jihad needs (if it ever wants to get its act together) is the development of a comprehensive Manual of Anti-Taqiyya -- which, perforce, would be an Anti-PCMC Manual, since our proper audience for our war of ideas should be our fellow Westerners who continue to be deluded in complicated ways about how problematic Islam is.  The Counter-Jihad needs to develop an Anti-Islam/PCMC App, so that every concerned civilian becomes armed with the truth, and thus deputized in this multifarious war of ideas.

Such an app, of course, needs to be comprehensive -- and this means, most importantly, capable of anticipating the sophistry, the leaps in logic, the red herrings, the straw men... in short, the dizzying array of logical fallacies which the typical Muslim and the typical PCMC-besotted Westerner will deploy whenever their challenger probes too deeply with knowledge of Islam.

Further Reading:

TMI (Too Much Information, Too Much Islam)

We don't need 1,001 "Islam 101"s

7 comments:

Egghead said...

Rather it is to ask questions that make the Muslim think:

How many times is the word 'love' mentioned in the Koran?

What kind of Muslim are you?

If Shia: Should we import more Sunni Muslims?

If Sunni: Should we import more Shia Muslims?

Do you know anyone who has dreamed of Jesus?

Egghead said...

Entering into a 'gotcha' conversation with a Muslim is literally pointless. Both we and they know exactly what Islam is.

The only point is to try to change the Muslim. But change to what? And that's where the answer is important.

To change the Muslim into a Jew is pointless because Islam is simply a corrupted form of Judaism - really Judaism for low IQ people. And Judaism is more and more obviously destructive to white Western Christian civilization.

To change the Muslim into an atheist is pointless because most atheists are liberals and liberals believe in open immigration - with the goal to import more Muslims with the view to 'save' Muslims from Islam - as if Muslims come with the intention to be saved. Hence, at the large atheist church discussion of Islam in Richmond, VA, last year, we see the quite attractive 'ex'-Muslim atheist doctors lobbying hard to bring as many Muslims as possible to the USA to 'save' them from Islam, and the foolish white liberal 'Black Lives Matter' sign showing atheists eating up that idea - and who would know the 'displacement jihad' intention of poor Muslim refugees and immigrants better than the most educated 'ex'-Muslims - unless we're going to contend that the most educated Muslims somehow failed to know the Islam that they ostensibly 'left' as a religion?!

To change the Muslim into a Christian is unreliable because Muslims (as a variant of Jewish Marranos) lie in the furtherance of Islam. So who would and how would we verify any Christian conversion? Worse yet, mental conversion is NOT genetic conversion, and Muslims have been wrecking their genomes via 1,400+ years of incest and close cousin marriage. And that, my dears, is how the sins of the father are visited upon his children for many generations....

The first time that I felt that Hesperado blatantly lied to me was in his citing a famous man as being a founder of PC MC without citing that man's families' status as being very rich Jewish Marranos - a very easy web search to find that PC MC founder's very Jewish heritage.

Nobody said...

Hesperado

The biggest problem w/ what Hugh suggested is that whoever is asking the 'anything' has to be an in-depth scholar of Islam - of the kind of a Ali Sina or a Wafa Sultan or a Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The moment a Muslim will deny something, one would have to either fish something out of the Quran or Sunnah, or cite something in history. Given what the average non-Muslim knowledge is of either, the Muslim interlocutors would accuse the questioners of having an agenda, and they'd be right.

In the 90s, when that movie 'The Siege' (by Ed Zwick) ran, I had gone to see the movie. When I was back at the parking lot, I saw a poster on my car windshield that contained a statement of the local Muslim association, declaring that what the movie showed about the Muslims in it was not true about Muslims, or about Islam. Had there been any Muzzie anywhere near, I'd have told them to get lost and not touch my property. As it is, I put the leaflet under my car tyre and drove off over it.

My point is that no good can come engaging Muslims in a debate where they are simply either gonna lie, or put out kitman statements that normal semi-informed non Muslims are not gonna catch. Best thing to do is just support all public moves like the current attempt to ban the 7 countries in question, and over time, expand them to cover first all Muslim countries, and then later, all Muslims from other countries, be it France, UK, Netherlands, India, Philippines, Thailand, et al

Hesperado said...

Nobody, as Hugh and other Jihad Watchers pointed out in that article, the intended audience for these interrogations would not be Muslims, but our fellow Westerners who still remain stuck in various stages of half-sleep on the issue. But with that intended audience in mind, you're still correct, as I point out -- the questioner needs to be well armed with knowledge. I don't think this means the questioner has to be a scholar of Islam himself. A Manual (in the form of a phone app) could go a long way to arming a civilian in the war of ideas -- as long as the app has been comprehensively programmed.

If the Counter-Jihad really cared about this war of ideas, and if its Leadership really cared, they would pool their resources together (Spencer, for example, could announce he would donate, say 25% of the money he makes off of the Counter-Jihad) to program such an app. Its contents would be the product of a team of experts (including Shoebat, Sina, Warraq, Spencer, Warner, Wood, etc.), but it should also be "field tested" in order to fine-tune it. Take it out for test-drives by actually engaging Muslims and PC MCs, record their answers & retorts (and, more often, their prevarications), then study these responses in order to develop more of an ability to anticipate the tangents of sophistry that will likely ensue.

It's by waking up our fellow Westerners that policies such as Trump's (let alone far more robust policies that should be done) become more supported sociopolitically. As it stands, Trump is practically under siege by the entire Cosmos.

Egghead said...

The main problem with PC MC (designed, implemented and legally enforced by Western Jews in direct accordance with Jewish religious law) is that any white Western Christian (or renegade Muslim or Jew) who effectively challenges any dogmatic doctrinal Muslim, Jew, or LGBTQ is instantly accused of bullying and/or 'hate' crimes (depending on location in USA or Europe) - evoking a protective instinct (extending as far as white Western Christian shunning, bankruptcy, and imprisonment) from other white Western Christians.

To wit, the MORE effective a white Western Christian is at explaining the utter insanity of mainstream (versus radical) Muslim, Jewish, and LGBTQ ideas and actions, the MORE dire the consequences to the sane white Western Christian and the MORE triggered other white Western Christians are to take the side of the 'attacked' Muslims, Jews, and LGBTQ 'victims' of knowledgeable white Western Christian 'meanies.'

In reading Jewish comments on Forward, it becomes clear that even Jews are disallowed from and severely punished in-group for publicly criticizing other Jews because such criticism contravenes Jewish rabbinical authority. This is indeed the root and very essence of Sharia Law later adopted and still enforced by Muslims on behalf of Mohammed.

Nobody said...

I also just saw the thread in question. One suggestion that someone suggested that might work is - go ahead and praise Mohammed's controversial acts, be it raping Aisha, demanding Zaynab,et al. If the Muz tries playing to the 'gallery' and shares in those celebrations, that could possibly expose him, although I daresay such a interviewer would still be accused of entrapment

Egghead said...

It all truly depends on what result you are trying to achieve. Who is your audience: the white Western Christian (and where do they live - USA or Europe, city or rural, coast or middle America), the Western Jew (Israeli Jews and Jews familiar with Israel already know about Islam and Muslims), or the Muslim (are you trying to provoke, embarrass, harass, or convert)?

Any white Western Christian who would speak of Mohammed would be accused of 1) antagonizing one (or more Muslims), 2) disrespecting and/or misinterpreting the Koran, Mohammed and Muslims, 3) failing to understand that Mohammed was a man of his times and Muslims are different now, and 4) that moderates are different than radicals anyway.

Donald Trump criticized Pamela Gellar's 'Draw Mohammed Day' for 'unnecessarily' antagonizing Muslims to the point of murder. Thus, drawing a cartoon is now a serious rationalization for what? Murder? Mayhem? Riots? Mass murder?!

Meanwhile Christians and secular white Westerners keep up the facade that they are trying to mitigate Islam (assimilation anyone?) if not outright convert Muslims (into what praytell) by bringing Muslims to the West. But, why would you need to mitigate a peaceful religion or convert its adherents? See, white Western Christians already KNOW that Muslims need to change (i.e., stop mistreating women and gays, etc.)

Christian radio asked: What Christian REALLY tries to convert Muslims? The Christians may be friends with Muslims but the Christians are too polite or too scared to even try to discuss Christianity to convert Muslims, so that's a bust. Meanwhile Muslims are out there inviting Christians to outreach programs at mosques where the Christians are 'damned' to their face in Arabic. Yeesh!

Christian radio reported that an imam gave a prayer that slammed infidels in Arabic to Trump's face at his own inauguration! This is yet another great reason to insist on English only speeches at public events paid for by the taxpayer!

Any white Western Christian who praised Mohammed 'marrying' a six year old would be told that Mohammed married a 16 year old. That's the common dodge - along with 'well that was then and this is now.'

Any white Western Christian who praised Mohammed for beheading hundreds of Jews would be called an anti-Semitic Nazi KKK member and would likely be persecuted for 'hate crimes' against Jews just for talking about it.

One effective method to speak of Mohammed is to present a one for one comparison of the ideas and acts of Jesus versus Mohammed as found on The Religion of Peace website (scroll down to the table).

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx