How to debate a Muslim

Here are some tips on how not to get caught with malevolent detractors who would pull the Islamic wool over your eyes and ears, (if you let them)

End Times Today with Walid Shoebat — Lesson 2: How to Deal with a Muslim

Part One is here


Circular reasoning:

“The Koran is the word of Allah because it says so in the Koran”

“Mohammed was not a pedophile because most of the women in his harem were older…”

That would justify the Austrian Fritzl who kept raping his own daughters for almost two decades while locking them up in his celler……..

But Muslims don’t  need perverts like Fritzl,  they’re always 2 steps ahead:

AMMAN: A Jordanian criminal prosecutor has charged a carpenter with the rape and murder of his teenage daughter after he tried to perform a caesarean operation on the victim to abort her and conceal his crime, local newspapers reported Monday.


In the last couple of days we’ve have quite a few of these ‘defenders of Islam’ on this blog. To spot these annoying time-wasters I dug this out from our “Islam” archive, just to help you all on how to smell the coffee early enough. Note also that most of these mental giants use Western names like  ‘Dave’ or ‘Michael’ and usually call themselves ‘Christians’-  all in the noble spirit of  “war is deceit”- but they are easily spotted.

Debating Mohammedan Taqiyya Doctors

Hugh Fitzgerald wrote this quite a while ago, I have taken liberty to  edit it slightly for length and  this blog entry:

Infuriating, is it not, to attempt to have a rational debate and to find yourself instead with an opponent who slithers about like an eel, and with whom you can never quite engage, because you can never quite grasp and hold him long enough, because he is forever slipping and sliding and meanwhile keeping of a non-stop patter of distraction and attack and omission and exaggeration. The very idea of a debate is or should be related to the idea that each party attempts, in good faith, to examine a topic together, and to ask, or answer, questions of or from the other.

Muslims don’t do that. They don’t ‘play nice’- because  they are religiously obliged to defend the indefensible, and you will be frustrated out of your wits about the detractions, the lies and prevarications that will be thrown your way.

Unless the moderator-hosts for such things set up strict rules, and demand that questions be answered and not remain un-answered or answered with irrelevancies, the farce will continue. And all that will have been learned is something about the eerily eel-like quality of the other side, with all that slipping and slithering –perhaps not quite as effectively as Tariq Ramadan — as far away from the real and serious matter at hand, as is possible.

Dhimmi Watch: Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim, Part II

Dhimmi Watch: Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim, Part I

A note from Robert Spencer

Deception in Islam

How to Debate a Muslim

Turnspeak, lies, deflection and taqiyya:

When trying to debate with Muhammed worshipers you will end up frustrated and exasperated: Muhammedans are masters of a technique called ‘turnspeak’–  they use Tu Quoque (’you do it too-arguments) ‘accuse the accuser’- they employ kitman & taqiyya (lies & deception and dissimulation) they deflect away from the subject matter to avoid getting nailed on the unpleasant things like the atrocities, the rape, the plunder, slavery and child-molesting of the ‘profit’ Mohammed and his companions. Inevitably, if you know your stuff-,  you will be cursed, they will threaten to kill you and tell you that you will go to hell for questioning their belief-system.

Expect this and prepare yourself accordingly:

Criticizing Islam? Get ready for this:

by Infidel

Whenever you criticize anything related to Islam, Allah, Muhammad, Sharia laws or muslim community, you will find a refutation immediately. To refute something is OK but the way muslims refute is funny. Here are some most common ways of a muslim-refute, the order may change depending upon your and muslim’s caliber:

1. First of all, muslims will say,  “you are ignorant, you are a hypocrite, this is false information,  this is a lie”, and, when it comes to Islamic terrorism: “get over it…”
Whatever you say is wrong and whatever they say is only right.

2. Next step is Taqqiya. i.e. “Islam means peace”, “Islam was not spread by sword but love”, “No compulsion in religion”,

3. If you quote from Koran or hadith, you will be accused of quoting verses in bits and pieces, or they claim  “suicide bombing  is not allowed in Islam, there is nothing in the Koran…blah blah” or “FGM is un-Islamic” when it is in fact the Muslims who insist on such barbaric practices because of a vague hadith.

4. Be prepared for accusation that the verses you quoted are “twisted and out of context.” (an infidel cannot possibly understand Islam, but all’s well if you,  no matter how foolish or  ignorant, accept Islam…)

5. If you provide reference to your quote, then muslims will say “All your references are false and lies”, which implies only their references are true and correct.

6. You will be advised to “Read the koran first and you will see the light”

7. If you say you have already read it then they will doubt you as if you are a liar.

8. If you quote full verses (not bits & pieces) from koran and hadith, your translation is incorrect / misleading. Then you will be advised to learn Arabic and read the the original version.

9. If you say, I read the same Koran with most authentic translations, which muslims are referring to, then you will be asked “Did you read only the cover?”, “Read it with open mind”

(Read with closed mind, like a muslim reads by keeping their brains aside)

10. Besides your reading of the translated Koran or even though you know Arabic, if you quote from the Koran, they quote hadith, tafseer etc, but if you quote hadith, then they will say “Only Koran is authentic”.

11. Deflection: After all this, if you are still willing to continue, they will distract you and other readers from the original issue/topic and feed you with plenty of irrelevant issues.

12. If you are still sticking to the original issue, Muslims will attack other religions’ scriptures like the  Bible, Torah, Vedas, Geeta etc and bring up events  like global warming,  world poverty,  the KKK or ‘Tim McVeigh”, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine etc.

13. Be prepared for one or more muslims to showing their way of convincing, such as Copy & paste stuff or reference from crap Islamic sites. This includes verses from Koran & hadith, twisted facts from non islamic holy scriptures (like mohammads coming)  prophesized in all of them or that the Jews (or Christians) have falsified their scriptures to deny Muhammad his rightful place as “the last prophet.”

14. In this context, one or more muslims will write about Miracles in the Koran or ‘koranic science’. Remember that whatever is discovered in recent time, Muslims will attribute it to Koran, but they will keep quite till it is discovered. They will never talk about the fallacies in the Koran like the “Sky is a dome on imaginary pillars”, “ the Sun sets in a muddy pond”, “the sun is revolving around the earth” etc. If you draw their attention to these fallacies, they will copy and paste crap again which is totally illogical and irrational. You will be again advised to read Koran.

15. You are about to loose your patience but still continuing, then comes personal attacks. You will be abused as fool, stupid, idiot, pig, dog etc. (in my case a Zionist, a label I wear with pride…)

16. If that does not work, then there will be accusations of taking money for your criticism of islam. You may get this also “Western media is biased, its propaganda to defame islam, Islam is wronged by all non muslims” etc.

17. If you don’t stop there, then muslims will run for your mother and sister.

18. If you are stubborn and still want to continue, you will be cursed like “Burn in hell, you will repent on judgement day, still time to seek the truth” etc

19. Towards the end, when all of the above has failed, you will be threatened directly like, “beware, watch it, keep cool, my sincere advice” or indirectly like “Give me your email id, don’t hide behind a false name, you are a coward (since you have a false id on the net), Then you might get an invitation to go to debate one to one or visit mosques or Islamic centers like Islamic Research Foundation in person” etc.

20. And finally- its drum beating, for all Muslioms, as if they won a debate, even when they lose miserably, because Koran is the word of allah.

Since the Koran is allah’s word and is clear to understand and is for all man kind, for all time and for all places, why there are hadiths, tafseers and commentaries?

Why  are various sects of islam and clerics understanding it differently, while Koran is very clear and for all to understand?

Why some verses are for a particular place and time, i.e. 1400 years ago and for the Arabic peninsula only, while the Koran is for all time, for all places and for all mankind?

Why there is Abrogation, later verses of the Koran supersede earlier ones? Was allah not able to reveal it at first time or did he change his mind time to time to suite muhammad’s needs?

Why is islam, being the only true religion, not able to be in majority, leave alone the only religion (as they claim) on the face of this earth, even after more than 1400 years since ‘revealed’ to muhammad?

There are many more questions but I will leave them for next time.

Update on this 25 December 2006

Islam, Lies  & Terror

Asserting that terrorism is not inherent to Islam is either uniformed or willfully untruthful.

Let’s look at what one of Islam’s own “holy books” say about the subject. The reports of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Al-Bukhari’s Hadith is second only to the Qur’an in importance to Muslims. It is comprised of the most authentic traditions associated with early Islam and the words of Muhammad.

Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’”

Bukhari:V1B7N331 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else. Allah made me victorious with terror. The Earth was made for me…. Booty was made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else.’”

Other Hadith by other authors also go into this, but this one source alone reveals the lie about Islam being a “religion of peace.” The Qur’an and other Hadith also say that it is OK to lie and use deceit and trickery against the infidels in the furtherance of the muslim cause, and that’s what they are doing when they talk about the “religion of peace.”

Mohammad approved of lying (Life of Mohammad Ihaq ed Hisham translated Guillaume (at pages 367-8 and 519) and Ghazali the great Muslim scholar makes it clear Islam allows lying to promote Islam:
Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

Update: here’s a classic case study from the National Post:

“In defence of Muslims”

National Post Published: Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Re: Rebels, Genocide And Segregation, letters to the editor, July 7.

I take grave offence to the statement made by letter-writer Howard Blank that “historically speaking, more Muslims have been killed … by fellow Muslims.” I would argue that more people have been killed, displaced and forced to migrate and relocate by European Christians than any other group.

An entire generation of Spanish Muslims was wiped out during the Spanish Inquisition. Bosnian Muslims recently were close to being exterminated by Serbian Christians. What about the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders? Or the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in France that wiped out the Huguenots and Muslim nobility?

Rizwan Jabbar, Toron

  • You see, Rizwan takes “grave offence” and cooks history to suit. Unfortunately for him, Oro Librowicz knows the real history and counters with facts:

Re: In Defence Of Muslims, letter to the editor, July 6.

Poking holes in Muslim defence

National Post Published: Thursday, July 09, 2009

It’s nonsense to say that the “Spanish Muslims were wiped out during the Spanish Inquisition” because the Inquisition did not persecute Muslims. Arabs invaded Spain in 711 and were considered conquerors. Therefore, the Christian kings fought against them for eight centuries, until 1492, to reconquer the Spanish territory lost after the Muslim invasion.

As for the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of the “Muslim nobility,” there couldn’t have been such a massacre because there were no Muslims living in France in the 16th century. Only the Protestant Huguenots were mercilessly killed on that fateful day of Aug. 23, 1572.

Oro Librowicz, professor of Spanish, Universite de Montreal.


Muslims habitually accuse “Christians” of having committed every atrocity in the world in order to deflect from theirs. The Christians, however, whatever you may think of them, did not fight their wars or commit genocide in accordance with  their scriptures. Muslims fail to make that connection. But lets take a closer look and see what Muslims do, rather than what they say:

Muslims are really good when it comes to killing other muslims:

Staggering statistics of muslim on muslim violence:

By: Gunnar Heinsohn and Daniel Pipes

The Arab-Israeli conflict is often said, not just by extremists, to be the world’s most dangerous conflict – and, accordingly, Israel is judged the world’s most belligerent country.

For example, British prime minister Tony Blair told the U.S. Congress in July 2003 that “Terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Here it is that the poison is incubated. Here it is that the extremist is able to confuse in the mind of a frighteningly large number of people the case for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel.” This viewpoint leads many Europeans, among others, to see Israel as the most menacing country on earth.

But is this true? It flies in the face of the well-known pattern that liberal democracies do not aggress; plus, it assumes, wrongly, that the Arab-Israeli conflict is among the most costly in terms of lives lost.

To place the Arab-Israeli fatalities in their proper context, one of the two co-authors, Gunnar Heinsohn, has compiled statistics to rank conflicts since 1950 by the number of human deaths incurred. Note how far down the list is the entry in bold type.

Conflicts since 1950 with over 10,000 Fatalities*

1 40,000,000 Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)

2 10,000,000 Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)

3 4,000,000 Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides

4 3,800,000 Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-present

5 2,800,000 Korean war, 1950-53

6 1,900,000 Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)

7 1,870,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91

8 1,800,000 Vietnam War, 1954-75

9 1,800,000 Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001

10 1,250,000 West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)

11 1,100,000 Nigeria, 1966-79 (Biafra); 1993-present

12 1,100,000 Mozambique, 1964-70 (30,000) + after retreat of Portugal 1976-92

13 1,000,000 Iran-Iraq-War, 1980-88

14 900,000 Rwanda genocide, 1994

15 875,000 Algeria: against France 1954-62 (675,000); between Islamists and the government 1991-2006 (200,000)

16 850,000 Uganda, 1971-79; 1981-85; 1994-present

17 650,000 Indonesia: Marxists 1965-66 (450,000); East Timor, Papua, Aceh etc, 1969-present (200,000)

18 580,000 Angola: war against Portugal 1961-72 (80,000); after Portugal’s retreat (1972-2002)

19 500,000 Brazil against its Indians, up to 1999

20 430,000 Vietnam, after the war ended in 1975 (own people; boat refugees)

21 400,000 Indochina: against France, 1945-54

22 400,000 Burundi, 1959-present (Tutsi/Hutu)

23 400,000 Somalia, 1991-present

24 400,000 North Korea up to 2006 (own people)

25 300,000 Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, 1980s-1990s

26 300,000 Iraq, 1970-2003 (Saddam against minorities)

27 240,000 Columbia, 1946-58; 1964-present

28 200,000 Yugoslavia, Tito regime, 1944-80

29 200,000 Guatemala, 1960-96

30 190,000 Laos, 1975-90

31 175,000 Serbia against Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, 1991-1999

32 150,000 Romania, 1949-99 (own people)

33 150,000 Liberia, 1989-97

34 140,000 Russia against Chechnya, 1994-present

35 150,000 Lebanon civil war, 1975-90

36 140,000 Kuwait War, 1990-91

37 130,000 Philippines: 1946-54 (10,000); 1972-present (120,000)

38 130,000 Burma/Myanmar, 1948-present

39 100,000 North Yemen, 1962-70

40 100,000 Sierra Leone, 1991-present

41 100,000 Albania, 1945-91 (own people)

42 80,000 Iran, 1978-79 (revolution)

43 75,000 Iraq, 2003-present (domestic)

44 75,000 El Salvador, 1975-92

45 70,000 Eritrea against Ethiopia, 1998-2000

46 68,000 Sri Lanka, 1997-present

47 60,000 Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-present

48 60,000 Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)

49 51,000 Arab-Israeli conflict 1950-present

50 50,000 North Vietnam, 1954-75 (own people)

51 50,000 Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)

52 50,000 Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79

53 50,000 Peru, 1980-2000

54 50,000 Guinea, 1958-84

55 40,000 Chad, 1982-90

56 30,000 Bulgaria, 1948-89 (own people)

57 30,000 Rhodesia, 1972-79

58 30,000 Argentina, 1976-83 (own people)

59 27,000 Hungary, 1948-89 (own people)

60 26,000 Kashmir independence, 1989-present

61 25,000 Jordan government vs. Palestinians, 1970-71 (Black September)

62 22,000 Poland, 1948-89 (own people)

63 20,000 Syria, 1982 (against Islamists in Hama)

64 20,000 Chinese-Vietnamese war, 1979

65 19,000 Morocco: war against France, 1953-56 (3,000) and in Western Sahara, 1975-present (16,000)

66 18,000 Congo Republic, 1997-99

67 10,000 South Yemen, 1986 (civil war)

*All figures rounded. Sources: Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1993; Courtois, S., Le Livre Noir du Communism, 1997; Heinsohn, G., Lexikon der Völkermorde, 1999, 2nd ed.; Heinsohn, G., Söhne und Weltmacht, 2006, 8th ed.; Rummel. R., Death by Government, 1994; Small, M. and Singer, J.D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M., “Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century,” 2003.

This grisly inventory finds the total number of deaths in conflicts since 1950 numbering about 85,000,000. Of that sum, the deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 include 32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks and 19,000 due to Palestinian attacks, or 51,000 in all. Arabs make up roughly 35,000 of these dead and Jewish Israelis make up 16,000.

These figures mean that deaths Arab-Israeli fighting since 1950 amount to just 0.06 percent of the total number of deaths in all conflicts in that period. More graphically, only 1 out of about 1,700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has died due to Arab-Israeli fighting.

(Adding the 11,000 killed in the Israeli war of independence, 1947-49, made up of 5,000 Arabs and 6,000 Israeli Jews, does not significantly alter these figures.)

In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.

Comments: (1) Despite the relative non-lethality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its renown, notoriety, complexity, and diplomatic centrality will probably give it continued out-sized importance in the global imagination. And Israel’s reputation will continue to pay the price. (2) Still, it helps to point out the 1-in-1,700 statistic as a corrective, in the hope that one day, this reality will register, permitting the Arab-Israeli conflict to subside to its rightful, lesser place in world politics.

Professor Heinsohn is director of the Raphael-Lemkin-Institut für Xenophobie- und Genozidforschung at the University of Bremen. Mr. Pipes ( is director of the Middle East Forum.

Young Female Islamist Denial

A Muslima activist pleads ignorance about her group’s bigoted texts and terrorist supporters.

Earlier this year, I wrote of a young female leader from the Muslim American Society (MAS), Mashal Azhar, and of the e-mails that she had sent me. She was upset at my group’s slogan, “Fighting Hate with Truth.” She had believed it was dishonest. She was mistaken.

In the course of our correspondence, Azhar was unusually candid in describing her and her group’sgoal of creating a new America and bringing her brand of Islam to the masses. Recently, I had the opportunity to communicate with another young female involved with MAS. Her responses were as disturbing as Azhar’s, if not more so.

On June 12, 2009, I received the following from an individual going by the name Sabrena Hamdan, concerning the website of our group, Americans Against Hate (AAH): “Dear whom ever this is addressed to, I have recently seen your website and really am taken aback. Not in a good way no no. More like a ‘stricken how can a human being be this dishonest’ sort of aback. 99.9% OF THE THINGS ON YOUR WEBSITE ARE NOT EVEN REAL FACTS.”

Without offering any specifics to back up her accusation, she then listed six quotes that she found on our site, quotes that we had previously used as evidence of the violence and hatred being propagated by the Muslim American Society (MAS), an organization that Hamdan later said she was involved with. They were:

·         The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews…”

·         “In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants.”

·         “If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them.”

·         “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”

·         “May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship.”

·         “A Muslim must always worship Allah and wage jihad until death in order to reach his ultimate goal… Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr.”

Hamdan wrote that “these so called ‘quotes’ are unbelievable.” She said that “most of them came from a Muslim [who] does not follow Islam.” She claimed that “the Quran says to be friends with the people of the book [Jews and Christians] and respect them.” She called the quotes “lies.” Yet, every one of the quotes was located on the official website of the Minnesota chapter of MAS.

I showed her proof that MAS published the quotes on its site, but she still questioned why I would consider MAS to be an “extremist group.”

She wrote to me, “I am involved with MAS. It is utterly harmless.” Either it was Miss Hamdan who was, herself, lying, or she was completely ignorant of the bigotry being spread by the organization she purported to be a part of. Indeed, even with the subject of “friendship” in the Quran, MAS-Minnesota has quoted the text three different ways, each one stating, “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends.”

In follow-up e-mails, Hamdan’s ignorance/denial continued, except no longer was it regarding religious texts. Soon it revolved around support for terror.

In her sixth e-mail to me, Hamdan sent me a link to a MAS page attacking me for attempting to get a2006 MAS New Year’s youth retreat (previously known as “jihad camp”) shut down for having, as its featured speaker, Youth Director of MAS-New Jersey and member of MAS’s Board of Trustees, Mazen Mokhtar. Like Hamdan’s calling the MAS-Minnesota quotes “lies,” MAS stated that I “falsely accused” Mokhtar of “having ties to al-Qaeda.”

According to the U.S. government, Mokhtar was the “U.S.-based administrator” for (Jihad in Chechnya), a website that was raising funds and recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda and the Taliban shortly before and after the 9/11 attacks. The site was a project of Azzam Publications, an organization named for Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. Mokhtar created and operated “mirror sites” for Qoqaz out of his North Brunswick, New Jersey home.

When I informed Hamdan of this and the fact that Mokhtar had stated on a number of occasions his support for Hamas and suicide bombings, she came back at me with a statement that could only be viewed as bizarre. She wrote, “But that’s not the point is it? He is doing something very nice enough to create these activities for youth. Am I right, he is not terrorizing us is he? No he helps me give the service hours for high school and to teach my sister relig[i]on. He gets muslim girls and boys together.”

When I asked her how she could describe someone who actively supports terrorism overseas as being “very nice,” she told me, in her final e-mail, that Mokhtar “puts an effect on the whole muslim community.”

Mokhtar certainly has put an affect on her – to the point where she blindly ignores the terrorism, as she has ignored MAS’s dissemination of hate.

Who has allowed this young girl to fall prey to such a warped environment as this? And how many more young minds have been “affected” by Mokhtar’s and MAS’s “kindness”? Where are the elders to step in and say “enough”?

Sadly, they sit in silence, if not contributing, to this Islamist child abuse.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate and the founder of CAIR Watch.

Here’s a classic case of taqiyya: the interviewer actually knows his stuff and asks the right questions, which is hardly ever the case. Thanks to Jihad Watch:

Chicago’s Islamic Supremacist Conference: A Conversation

Talk show host Guy Benson (thanks to Mackie) talks with a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic supremacist group that met in Chicago last week:

[Audio Clip] Fox News Anchor: “An Islamic extremist group, committed to building an empire around the globe—a group reportedly linked to Al Qaeda, by the way, and the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks—is holding a major conference at this very moment. Not on foreign soil, but right here on US soil. Steve Brown live right now in the Chicago suburb of Oak Lawn, where the conference is underway as we speak.”GB: Alright, welcome back…I want to take a phone call here, because Mort is calling from Lombard, and he says that he is a Muslim and was at the conference—that I was just referencing—earlier today. Mort, thanks for calling.

Caller: No problem; Can you hear me?

GB: I can. So you’re saying that you were at the conference this afternoon?

Caller: Yes, I was physically at the conference. I was there this afternoon; I actually left around 5:00.

GB: So what was your goal in going to the conference? Are you a member of this group? Were you there to observe? Why were you there?

Caller: No, well, first of all, I’m an ex-member of this group. But my purpose of calling the show was to clarify some misconceptions. I do not support this group; I don’t agree with them…

GB: Then why were you there? (Crosstalk) Mort, I’m going to give you plenty of time to state your case here. I’m just trying to get some background information and a baseline before we move forward. You were there, you used to be a member of the group, you no longer are, yet you showed up to their conference anyway. Why?

Caller: Uh, to see what they were talking about, because I actually left the group back in 1998, and they recently re-emerged out of the shadows. (Unintelligible)…So I decided to attend it and see what they were going to talk about.

GB: You’re a Muslim, right?

Caller: Yes, I am a Muslim.

GB: Why did you leave the group in the 90s?

Caller: Um, because they don’t share the same ideas I do on creed, they’re a little bit different than what I make out Islam to be. They’re a little bit different. And, uh, I don’t agree with them—their methodologies.

GB: “A little bit” different. Like, where would be your point of departure from Hizb ut-Tahrir, ideologically?

Caller: Well, set aside…I’m talking about fundamentals. Setting aside their ideas about the establishment of an Islamic state, etc. I’m not even discussing that. I’m discussing fundamentals of the creed. As far as the origin of Islam…

GB: But hang on, Mort. Ok, you’re saying that’s different from fundamentals, but don’t you think the establishment of a global caliphate is kind of a very important thing if you disagree with them on that point?

Caller: I don’t disagree with them on having an Islamic state. I mean, I believe that Muslims should have an Islamic state. I don’t disagree with them on that note. No, I don’t disagree with them on that.

GB: Do you think that Sharia Law should be imposed in the United States?

Caller: I don’t think it should be in this state. I think it should be allowed to happen in Muslim countries. If it comes to (the U.S.), and if it does by the people, then that’s something else. But I don’t think their aim is to have it in this country. Their aim at this conference, as I gathered, was to have it in the Muslim countries. And the premise of their argument was that there are a lot of foreign influences in Muslim governments, and they’re preventing an Islamic state from arising.

GB: Mort, what do you think—just out of curiosity—I know I’m kind of going off on a tangent here: What do you think about what’s going on in Iran? Do you support Ahmadinejad and Khamenei there? Do you think they’re the vanguards of true Islam?

Caller: Can I be quite frank and honest with you? I don’t really agree with the Shia version of Islam. I don’t think that they are in accordance with Islam. I think they have deviated from the practices. To be honest, I think the Ayatollahs running Iran are just, to be honest, mind my language, but they’re paid sex freaks. They engage in so many heinous crimes and acts that I don’t really agree with them, and to be honest, I’d rather Iran go to a whole new reform. (Crosstalk)

GB: OK, hang on… let me just reset for listeners. If you’re just tuning in, you’re listening to the Guy Benson Show. On the line with me is Mort, who’s calling from Lombard. He’s a Muslim who was at today’s Hizb ut-Tahrir conference in Oak Lawn at the Hilton there. This is a group that supports jihad. This is a group that supports jihad. Mort said that he left the group in the 90s, but went to the conference anyway today just to see what was up. Mort, what are your thoughts on this organization’s take that jihad is not only moral, but is in fact an obligation for all Muslims?

Caller: Can I just clarify something?

GB: Yeah.

Caller: First of all, this group is, you have to understand, a politically framed group. They don’t support jihad. They actually don’t want anything physical.

GB: No, no. Hang on, Mort. I cannot let you get away with that. This is in their own writings: “As for jihad, it is legal. In fact, it is an obligation. It is the apex of Islamic ethics.” That’s in their own writings, Mort.

Caller: “We’re not talking about (unintelligible) these comments. What I’m telling you is that there’s no question about jihad. Whether defensive or offensive, the premises differ based on situations. But what I’m talking about the group, and being a member, even though they may come off as a group that likes to advocate jihad, but in the end, they’re a group that’s politically mind-framed. You can look at the books of the starters of the groups, like a person named Khakid bin-Nebani (sic), people like this, they are the founders of these groups, and…

GB: Yeah, but Mort, (cross talk). Hang on. I understand what you’re saying—and this is exactly what we heard from (Foundation for Defense of Democracies Senior Fellow) Walid Phares—that this is not a group that physically takes up arms and shoots people and blows stuff up. They’re the ones that indoctrinate young Muslims, who then join Al Qaeda. That’s why this organization is dangerous. You’re calling it politically-based; I call it a factory for indoctrination. Am I wrong?

Caller: Actually Al Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir hate each other. They’re just completely different groups. They hate each other.

GB: Oh really? So why did Khalid Sheik Mohammed go from Hizb ut-Tahrir, where he was trained, and then join Al Qaeda and plan 9/11? If they hate each other so much, why did that happen?

Caller: Ok, well first of all, as far as Kalid Sheik Mohammad, as far as this guy, amongst the Muslim community, the identity is not known. (Unintelligible). Number two, there’s a reason if you think about it logically, why did he leave Hizb ut-Tahrir, then? Because that means Hizb ut wasn’t doing jihad. That’s why he left to go to Al Qaeda, who was doing jihad.

GB: No, that’s not the argument at all, Mort. The argument is that he was trained in the group that you were a member of, and then moved on to Al Qaeda and helped them plan the most devastating attack on US soil by an outside group, ever.

Caller: I’m telling you that when I was part of the group, there was no such talk as this. That’s what I’m trying to tell you.

(Cross talk)

GB: How old are you? Mort—how old are you?

Caller: …Let me tell you something. They would show videos of Palestine, and show videos of Chechnya, and say, “Look, this is what’s happening. We don’t have an Islamic state, we have to politically reform…”

GB: Well actually, I’m going to cut you off for a second. Stay with me here. Let me play you a further clip from the Fox News report that aired today about this conference.

[Audio clip]

Fox News anchor: They claim to be non-violent, but some of the materials that they’ve, uh, been passing out lately to people attending today’s conference, for example, suggests otherwise, doesn’t it?

Fox News reporter: Yeah, absolutely. This DVD is part of the conference materials being handed out. This was given to me by them. It’s an outcry to the Islamic ‘Uma’ or the faithful of Islam. In it, there’s a section of video from the Chechen wars between Chechnya and Russia in the 1990s, showing various civilian casualties—presumably many, if not all, of these folks are Muslim. And then there’s a voiceover by an unidentified male voice—possibly a cleric; could be anybody—talking about “Where are the armies of Jordan? Where are the armies of Syria? Where are the armies of Yemen? Where are the bombs of Pakistan? Why is it that, uh, there is no response from these Muslim nations?” Quite clearly, a call to arms, which is an odd thing from a peaceful group to be distributing during their conferences.

GB: Mort? Is that a lie? Is Fox News…

Caller: Again, to be honest with you, if you look at that situation in Russia, in Chechnya, in those areas, definitely. The Muslim armies had the right to call to arms in those areas because they were being oppressed, and their lands were being invaded, and there was ethnic cleansing going on there. Where were the armies? Isn’t that why the UN went there? Isn’t that why the armies went there for that reason?

GB: So Mort, you think Muslims taking up arms against Western countries for perceived, uh, travesties of justice or anything like that…you think it is legitimate. Do you think the people in Iraq who are blowing up our soldiers there because we “invaded” the country and are occupying Iraq—are those attacks justified on our soldiers?

Caller: We’re talking about Russia here.

GB: And I’m asking you about Iraq.

Caller: About Iraq? Well, look what happened in Iraq. I mean, to be honest, Iraq is a mess—what happened there. Those people in Iraq have the right to pick up arms. Of course they do!

GB: Okay, so the people killing our soldiers in Iraq have the right to do so because…

Caller: Is it their land, or not?

GB: It’s—we liberated those people from a dictatorship, did we not? Are they not voting for their own representatives now, Mort?

Caller: They don’t think they liberated them. You can go take a census of the people there. I know people in Iraq. They hate what America did to them over there.

GB: Well, I think that you’re not speaking for all Iraqis, but I think what’s happening here is—this has been very instructive, Mort. Because you called up here saying, “Oh, I reject this type of jihadist mentality; I used to be part of the group, but I left.” But here you are defending people going out and killing our soldiers in Iraq. I mean, Mort, you have to take a step back here.

Caller: I don’t advocate killing innocent people at all. You’re talking about what do I think about Iraqi people. If those people want to defend their land, that is entirely up to them.

GB: There you go. Mort, I think you’ve been trained very well by Hizb ut-Tahrir. A fascinating exchange. This has made me even more alarmed, ladies and gentlemen. Do you understand what just happened on this show? I’m speechless. Mort, thank you for the phone call; I hope we can talk again. Wow.


The other day Tariq Ramadan, the Islamofascist “Reformer”, told us that “Islamic Reformation is Done!” … which means reformation was never meant to happen.

Now we get another  old client, Ali Eteraz who gives us the finger:

Muslim writer says Muslims should give the finger to those who ask them to condemn terrorist acts

This is three weeks old, but I just saw it, and it is worth examining. With Ali Eteraz I have had many exchanges in the past; you can judge for yourself about what they may or may not have revealed. In one of them, he stated feebly that peaceful Muslims should remain silent in the face of jihadist violence and supremacism, claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr., stayed silent in the face of racist oppression.

That was preposterous enough, but now Ali Eteraz has made an even more preposterous move, going from supine passivity to defiance:

“Muslims Should Raise the Other Finger,” by Ali Eteraz at True/Slant, November 26 (thanks to James):

During the salat, or prayer, Muslims raise their index finger to bear witness to the oneness of God. In America today, with all the calls for Muslims to condemn every little act of violence committed in the name of their religion, Muslims should start raising up the other finger. The middle one.

There is no need for one Muslim to condemn the crimes of another. Collective responsibility cannot, and should not, be accepted. Where one accepts collective responsibility one opens the door to collective punishment. Are Muslims individuals? Or are they one singular marionette that pirouettes each time its string is pulled?

One of the most egregious acts of kowtowing to the “massa” occurred recently in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings. At Huffington Post, Muslim Public Affairs Council’s Salam al-Maryati wrote an article directed to Muslim-Americans, extolling them to “amplify our Muslim American identity.” No thanks. The only thing I’ll amplify is the length of my middle finger. A law-abiding American-Muslim has no need to do anything, one way or the other, when someone with a Muslim sounding name goes off the rail. The reason for this abstention-from-condemnation is not because “Christians don’t do it” or “Jews don’t do it.” It is nothing communal. Rather, it has to do with individual dignity, and individual accountability. We are all, each one of us, responsible for our actions, and liable for our mistakes. The ambit of our accountability cannot be allowed to extend beyond that. Why are the boundaries between one Muslim and another blurred and the individualities fused together? Muslims are not inkblots.

I have been against the notion of Muslims having to condemn this or that for years now, but previously my tone was restrained as I felt that calm persuasion was the right way to go about presenting this position. Not any more. Next time someone asks me to tell them why x or y Muslim murderer is evil I will bear witness in ways that are rated R.

Now in the name of Allah I’m going to go slaughter a turkey.

(As for the turkey bit, remember, this piece came out around Thanksgiving.)

The core assumption Eteraz makes here is that it is an exercise in collective responsibility that diminishes Muslims’ individuality if they are asked to condemn Islamic terrorist attacks. After all, Islam is not a monolith, as we are reminded endlessly. So if one Muslim believes that Islam teaches warfare against unbelievers and acts upon that belief, what does that have to do with Ali Eteraz, who presumably eschews such beliefs?

It’s a fair question. To what extent does membership in a group make one responsible for all the other members of that group? If one Christian does some evil deed and ascribes it to Christianity, are all Christians everywhere responsible for that?

Well, to a certain extent, yes. They wouldn’t rightly share any of the blame for it, but it would be incumbent upon them to show to those who might be concerned about a recurrence of such evil deeds that the way in which the evildoer used Christianity was actually wrong, and condemnable, and that they were working against such a recurrence by teaching against such false beliefs.

The point, in other words, is not collective responsibility at all. To blame all Muslims for the actions of jihadists would be asinine. But to take note of how those jihadists use Islam — its texts and core teachings — to justify violence and supremacism and warfare against unbelievers — and to ask peaceful Muslims what they’re doing to combat such teachings within the Muslim community is not asinine at all.

And it is not blaming anyone for anything he didn’t do. It is simply to ask someone like Eteraz this: “The jihadis say that they’re following the authentic path of Islam. If they’re correct, the implications of this would be many and ominous, for it would suggest that all Muslims, if they decided to follow the authentic path of Islam, would become jihadis — working either by violent or peaceful means to impose Sharia upon non-Muslims. You say you’re living out an authentic expression of Islam, and reject all that. Good. What case are you making against the jihadist understanding of Islam within the Muslim community? How are you combating it?”

I don’t think these are unreasonable questions. For if Muslims who profess to reject the jihadist understanding of Islam don’t fight against it, who will? And if they profess to reject the jihadist understanding of Islam but don’t do anything to stop its spread, of what ultimate value is their rejection of it? They may not be responsible for it, but since they profess Islam, shouldn’t they feel any responsibility to combat the jihadist claim to represent authentic Islam?

Apparently not. In years of calling for peaceful Muslims to present a viable alternative to the jihadist understanding of Islam, one that will convince Muslims not to take the jihadist path, we have seen numerous vague assertions that the jihadis are violating Islamic teaching; some vague condemnations of “terrorism” and attacks on “innocent civilians” that don’t define either term or rule out the jihadist understanding of Islam; some transparently flimsy constructions based on selective Qur’an quoting that will convince ignorant non-Muslims but not a single Muslim; and some “reformist” interpretations of Islam that roll out with much fanfare in the mainstream media but end up being only condemnations of attacks that kill other Muslims or attacks that don’t have state authority behind them (which latter point ignores the fact that in Islamic theology defensive jihad is incumbent upon every Muslim, state authority notwithstanding, and all contemporary jihads are presented as defensive).

And now we get the finger.

All right. I wouldn’t expect anything else from Ali Eteraz, but I do hope that some people who have been counting upon peaceful Muslims to work against the jihadists within Muslim communities will take careful note


Twisted minds: the psychology of the Musulman:

As for debate, here is another egregious example of how Moslems accuse us of every crime ever committed in the history of the world, only to deflect away from the genocidal doctrine of their ideology, which masquerades as a religion. This is from an article in the NYT:

Muslims Say F.B.I. Tactics Sow Anger and Fear

“Angry, fearful Muslims”- where did we hear that before? Could it be that preventing them in their jihad is making them angry and fearful?

The anxiety and anger have been building all year. In March, a national coalition of Islamic organizations warned that it would cease cooperating with the F.B.I. unless the agency stopped infiltrating mosques and using “agents provocateurs to trap unsuspecting Muslim youth.”

In September, a cleric in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, sued the government, claiming that the F.B.I. had threatened to scuttle his application for a green card unless he agreed to spy on relatives overseas — echoing similar claims made in recent court cases in California, Florida and Massachusetts.

And last month, after an imam in Queens was charged with aiding what the authorities called a bomb-making plot, a group of South Asian Muslims there began compiling a database of complaints about their brushes with counterterrorism investigators.

Since the terror attacks of 2001, the F.B.I. and Muslim and Arab-American leaders across the country have worked to build a relationship of trust, sharing information both to fight terrorism and to protect the interests of mosques and communities.

But those relations have reached a low point in recent months, many Muslim leaders say. Several high-profile cases in which informers have infiltrated mosques and helped promote plots, they say, have sown a corrosive fear among their people that F.B.I. informers are everywhere, listening.

“There is a sense that law enforcement is viewing our communities not as partners but as objects of suspicion,” said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who represented Muslims at the national prayer service a day after President Obama’s inauguration. “A lot of people are really, really alarmed about this.”

There is little doubt that a spate of recent cases — from the alleged bomb plot by a former Manhattan coffee vendor, Najibullah Zazi, to the shootings at Fort Hood, in Texas — has heightened Americans’ concerns about homegrown terrorism. Muslim leaders have promised to redouble efforts to combat extremism in their ranks.

Yet they also worry about the fallout for the vast numbers of the innocent. Some Muslims, Ms. Mattson said, have canceled trips abroad to avoid arousing suspicion. People are wary of whom they speak to. Community groups say it is harder to find volunteers. Many Muslim charities are hobbled.

I thank the NYT for the article. I also thank many of the religious bigots for their remarks. First of all, I would like to say that as a committed Muslim who was born in this country. I am a Muslim first without regard to geography. My loyalty is to Al-Islam, the Qur’an, the Sunnah of Prophet of Muhammad (SAWS) and the Shariah whether you all like it or not. There is a verse in the Holy Qur’an that speaks to you. It is in Surah 61, ayat 9.

Neither the Ummah of Islam, nor me, owe you (the various bigoted posters), this country any apologies for what criminals do. Have any of you Christians or Christian clerics apologized for the behavior of the Christian Knights of the KKK, when they burned crosses and terrorized, and murdered Black people here in this country? Do any of you Christians, and your clerics apologize for violating all the laws of this country, and the Ten Commandments in the genocide that put the Native American on the reservation and you on his land? Have any of your Christians as individuals, as a collective community and your clerical class apologize for the goose steping Nazis (they were Christians, lest you all want to forget) for their crimes in Europe which include murdering 20m people in concentration camps? The Pope of Rome was quiet and he knew what was going on. The Vatican bank laundered Nazi profits, which included looted gold stolen off the bodies of gassed Jews from the gas chambers. Is that an indictment of Christianity? Or, do you want to act like it was an aberrant chapter in the behavior Europeans?

If you are looking for Islamic condemnation of terrorism, then search the Internet for the khutbah (sermon) of Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh of Saudi Arabia given on Arafat during Hajj on November 26, 2009. Then ask the NYT and other western media who had representatives on the Hajj, why they failed to report his comments? Maybe they will answer your questions.

Do you all remember how the French (a predominately Catholic country) massacred 1m Algerians in the Algerian liberation struggle. Yes, they killed 1 out of 12 Algerians in the struggle to maintain “their” colony. But in your minds, that behavior is not a reflection of European/French Catholics; but some depraved person who straps dynamite to himself in a pizzeria, is a reflection of Islam.

Have any of you Jews apologized for Bernard Madoff, and Andrew Fastow (CFO of Enron) for defrauding millions of people of their savings? When you all start doing that; then I as a Muslim will start apologizing for the deviant acts of people who claim to be Muslims.

Lastly, for the European poster who wanted to warn you all of what appeasing Muslims will mean: Sir, do you remember the IRA, when the placed a car bomb in the Kensington section of London, next Harrod’s (a major department store) during the Xmas shopping season? Sir, do you remember the IRA who launched a mortar attack against the BBC and attempted a mortar attack against 10 Downing Street? Sir, do you remember the IRA who murdered Lord Mountbatten with a bomb planted underneath his boat? Sir, do you remember Bader Mahoff gang, the ETA separtist, and some of the left leaning terrorists groups of the 1970’s in Europe? Many of these people were baptized Christians, but I am sure their behavior has nothing to do with the short comings of Christianity– but somehow a criminal who claims to be a Muslim, and engages in a criminal act has everything to do with Islam. Sir, if you are living in this country, know that America has the highest incarceration rate of any nation on earth. 95% of the people who are languishing in America’s prisons are Christians.

I wonder when America’s Christian community and clerical class will come out and speak against criminality in their ranks?


Zaid. That’s got to be a world record for the number of straw men in one post.

Zaid doesn’t have a leg to stand on and he knows it, which is why he is so proficient in his deflections. ANYTHING to point the finger at all sorts of other bad behavior that happened decades, even centuries ago, all intended to dazzle and blind the reader to what Muslims do.

The Muslim commenter is posting the ignorant/willfully deceptive party line of Muslims and Leftists everywhere: “Why isn’t religion brought up when non-Muslims commits crimes?”

Of course, it only takes a right-thinking person a second of thought to realize, the rest of these crimes are not committed with a religious motivation in mind, whereas almost all Muslim crimes are religiously-driven (and in that light, not even thought of as “crimes” in the eyes of the perpetrators).

This Muslim fool is implying Bernie Madoff was explicitly citing and being guided by the Torah when screwing people out of their money.

This guy will go to great lengths, as they all do, to sound intelligent and educated. But the heat from their emotional religion of hate, death and blood gives them away.

8 thoughts on “How to debate a Muslim”

  1. Excellent article Sheik..the ”you do it too” line is tired beyond belief…All the ” There are Christian terrorists too” line..noone ever backs this with facts and the” There are bad people in every religion” line…bla bla bla
    So tedious…and the being called racists..whose not sick to death of that…

  2. A skull harder than a Hitler helmet, theresaj…

    Have you seen his blog? He’s an activist for open borders, believes the whole ummah has the right to settle here, behind enemy lines, he is an ardent believer in ‘Global Worming’(which is proven by gazillion ‘scientists’ beyond any doubt and our greedy corporations are destroying the 3rd world) he thinks Muslims will be nice to us if only we are nice to them, and its cool to let them take over. He believes our banking system is based on ‘usury’ while Islamic finance is better, he thinks America ‘had it coming’ (9/11), because for this kook the most benevolent nation on earth is causing all the poverty in the world, and he wants to educate Muslims on how peaceful Islam is.

    Like “I just want to get to the bottom of it”- as in imam George Bush’s “Islam is a religion of peace” idiocy.

    Of course Islam forbids suicide, which means to take your own life without any reason. But killing yourself in the cause of Allah becomes a martyrdom operation, and is therefore justified and glorified by all Islamic scholars.

    Suicide operations are a constant throughout 14 years of Islamic history, and didn’t just start in 1982. If an Islamist walks into a police station and starts stabbing (or shooting) the police (as happened recently in the Netherlands) and gets shot in the process, then he is engaged in a murder suicide mission, which for him is a martyrdom operation. “Martyrdom” for a christian has a very different meaning, and if he is indeed a Christian he would understand that, but he doesn’t. All Islamic scriptures justify terror-suicide missions. ‘Striking terror in the hearts of the enemy’ is basic jihad, that’s what “good Muslims” do. The clerics may lie and deny it, (kitman & taqiyya) but that’s for infidel consumption only. “War is Deceit”, said Muhammad, and “I have been commanded to wage war on mankind until all religion is for Allah”- that means every Mohammedan is obliged to lie, to deceive, to propagandize, to do da’awa or to engage in terror against the infidel. Its perpetual warfare, and this is too hard to swallow for Western apologists, PC-infected kumbaya monkeys, who have elevated multiculturalism and global worming to ersatz-religions.

    The 9/11 perps are glorified throughout the Islamic world, and the London bombers got hero’s funerals in Pakistan.

    A while ago I started a glossary for Islam speak, to show that words have a completely different meaning for Msulims than for us. When Muslims say “Innocent” for example, it means Muslims only.Unbelievers are never ‘innocent’. Because “unbelief is worse than slaughter”, unbelievers are guilty of the most heinous crime because they rejected the prophet of Islam. What could be worse than that? We have a fatwa (ruling) from a popular South African mufti Ibrahim Desai to prove it.That’s why none, not one of their apologies is ever genuine. and that doesn’t include the obligatory ‘but’ that comes after every terrorist attack. Muslims believe in a G-d given right to rule over us, so they are justified in opposing “oppression”, but oppression for them means having to live under infidel rule, under “man-made” laws, and for Muslims only the sharia, which subjugates the kuffar to dhimmi (slave) status, is acceptable. Therefore they are religiously obliged to remove all obstacles to the spread of Islam, which is again jihad in many forms. The ends justify the means.

    Another important point to make is that there is no place in the world where Islamic peoples have integrated or assimilated peacefully with the natives, everywhere there is strife, Muslims are responsible for nearly all the wars in the world today, so there is really no argument there.

    But as always, Muslims see it differently, because of their global mission, and even more so, they are free of blame:

    Bassam Tibi (1996): “Islamic wars are acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is “temporary truce” (hudna) allowed.”

    Enough for now. More later…

    There are nearly 6000 blog posts on Winds of Jihad, and several hundred comments turds deposited from Muslims telling us that the earth is flat and Islam is peaceful. When challenged, they disappear, usually with death-threats. There are not enough hours in the day to bother with this. My time is too expensive. They should try to educate their co-religionists about their peaceful religion instead of trying to pull the Islamic wool over our eyes and ears.

  3. Thank you so much for creating the “How to debate a Muslim”

    I beg you to address the non-Muslims who attempt to defend Muslim terrorist attacks (9-11, Mumbai, London 7-7, Madrid) claiming they only attack because “we’re in Muslim countries.” I see that fallacious argument all too often.

    Islamic Crusades 5: Why did they hate us in 1783?

    ST.MARK 12:29
    ST.JOHN 16:7

  5. S.Al-Araaf(THE HEIGHTS)157(correction)

Comments are closed.