Factual Persuasion: Example Cases (Part 2)
Once you know something about the doctrine of Islam, you can wonder if you really know that much when you hear some Muslim (or apologist professor) say the following:
- • The Koran forbids compulsion in religion [2:256]
- • The Koran teaches the oneness of god and acceptance of all the prophets [2:285]
- • Brotherhood [49:13]
- • Acceptance of diversity [5:48]
- • Peaceful relations with the Jews and Christians [3:64; 29:46; 5:5]
- • Universal justice and fair dealings with all people [4:135; 5:8]
When you hear this good teaching from some Muslim or apologist you may doubt your knowledge. Maybe you have misjudged the doctrine and there is some way that Islam can be a force for the good of humanity.
Before we examine how good a force Islam is, let us examine how the doctrine is designed to deceive.
- "Mohammed said: war is deceit." [Bukhari 4,52,267]
- "The hypocrites wish to deceive Allah, but He will deceive them." [Koran 4:142]
- "Remember the unbelievers who plotted against you and sought to have you taken prisoner or to have you killed or banished. They made plans, as did Allah, but Allah is the best plotter of all." [Koran 8:30]
When it comes to deception, Mohammed was a deceiver and advised Muslims to deceive Kafirs. Allah plots against Kafirs and deceives them. All Muslims who follow the doctrine are deceivers of Kafirs. That is their sacred task. So when you hear about all of those good verses in the Koran, know that you are being deceived. All of the “good” verses in the Koran are denied later in the Koran. This is an example of the Mecca/Medina duality.
If Islam is so tolerant, why was there no Arab left to disagree with Mohammed at the time he died? When he re-entered Mecca as its conqueror, he issued death warrants for all those who had disagreed with him. Is this tolerance?
A supreme example of deception, taqiyya, is Imam Feisal Rauf ’s book What’s Right with Islam in which he claims that the Constitution is based on Islamic principles and that Islam is based on the Golden Rule.
What is your basis?
Instead of arguing against a point, ask the question: “Why do you say that? Where did you learn that?” In dealing with Islam, this is especially important as most people who speak about Islam with you get their information from a magazine, web or TV. Islam is a text based doctrine that is all about Mohammed. Tell them that you want to hear what Mohammed did and said. He is the basis to discuss Islam.
Fill in the blanks
It is a very useful technique to not oppose what your opponent/student says. Instead, give them the rest of the information. Fill in the other side of the duality. The beauty of this approach is that the other person is not being attacked at all, so they don’t tend to push back and argue.
Islamic doctrine has two faces. When someone brings in some part about Islam that seems good, just give them the other side of the story. If they talk about Meccan Islam, give them the other half, the Medinan Islam.
This is not scientific reasoning, but it is a debate strategy. When you are first beginning to debate in person, you may find yourself in unfamiliar areas and feel you lack knowledge about something. If you are debating online or writing a letter to the editor, then you can research the facts, but in person you may, for tactical purposes, decide to change the subject by making a transition. Muslims do this all the time by changing the subject with an accusation against the Crusades, Christians or colonialism.
You can win an argument by rhetorical tactics. This is not scientific reasoning, but emotional reasoning. It works so well that you should always be aware of it when it is used by others.
The technique is very simple—transition to Mohammed. It is always possible to move the discussion to Mohammed. For instance, if there is some talk about what is in the Koran, point out that the Koran repeatedly says that all Muslims must follow the perfect example of Mohammed. Once you get to Mohammed, you can move to abuse of women, hatred of Jews, violence against intellectuals and artists, slavery…
Don’t ever attack the other person in any way. Don’t raise your voice or insult. It never persuades and only makes the other person more angry and stubborn. All debate should be done from the angle of teaching and insults don’t create a teaching moment. More than that, it shows you to be out of control and unprofessional.
If you are insulted, your response depends upon whether an apologist or a Muslim insults you. If a Muslim insults, thank them for being such a good Muslim and following the Koran and the Sunna. The Koran uses many insults and curses against Kafirs. Mohammed frequently cursed and insulted Kafirs. Insults are part of authoritarian reasoning and Islam. Thank them for showing how Islamic logic and reasoning work. Their next Islamic move should be to use some form of threat. Ask them if they want to display their threat by revealing it.
If they are not a Muslim, stay with the authoritarian thinking theme. Point out that insults, name-calling and put-downs are part of authoritarian thought. Attack the fact that authoritarian thought is part of Official Islam, the Big Lie.
Secular Muslims don’t believe the religious “stuff”
First, why talk about individual Muslims? What does any individual prove about any group? If you know of a Christian who cheats, does that prove anything about Christianity? No. Don’t discuss Muslims, except to point out that they come in three flavors—Meccan, Medinan, and Golden Rule. A Golden Rule Muslim is actually a Kafir, since he follows Kafir ethics, not Islamic dualistic ethics.
If they are a secular Muslim, then what part of the Koran and the Sunna do they reject and why? Good luck on getting them to deny any part of it.
Why shouldn’t Muslim women wear the hijab?
The hijab is a symbol of Sharia compliance. The Sharia is based upon duality and submission. Hence, the hijab is a symbol of hatred, because it is a sign of support for Sharia law which includes the hatred of the Kafir and violence against them.
Demanding prayer at work
Why should Kafirs submit to any Islamic demands? Freedom of religion does not mean the right to dictate what others do. Demanding to have special time for prayer is a political demand. If the Kafir does not allow it, then the Muslim does not have to pray. That is Islamic Sharia law, because the Sharia gives the rules for makeup prayers, when prayer is missed. While prayer is religious, the demand on the Kafir is a political demand.
Islamic violence is caused by poverty and oppression
This statement is the same as saying: “I do not have the slightest knowledge about the Sunna of Mohammed and am completely ignorant about the Koran of Medina.”
During the last nine years of his life, Mohammed averaged a violent event every six weeks. He is the perfect Muslim who is the perfect model of behavior. Muslims are violent because Mohammed was violent. Violence is pure Sunna and does not need poverty or a manufactured oppression.
Besides, nearly every jihadist leader is from middle class and is well educated. They are far from poor or oppressed.
Moderates can reform Islam from the inside
Islam is the religious, political and cultural doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. How does anyone reform any of the doctrine? Islam cannot change or be reformed according to its own doctrine. A Muslim can be reformed, but not Islam.
The Sira is comprised of 67% violence (jihad) [Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad]. Only 21% of the Hadith is about jihad. The Koran devotes 64% of its text to Kafirs [Kafirs in the Trilogy] and every reference is bigoted, hateful and evil. How do you take this and reform it? No one can reform Islam.
The only reform a Muslim can offer is to not choose what is on the menu. This is what the so-called moderate Muslims do. The violence and hatred are in the doctrine, but they do not choose to accept it. But, they still defend Islam and deceive Kafirs about the true nature of Islam that they are avoiding. In other words, “moderate” Muslims are denying the true doctrine and deceiving us that it does not exist.
All moderates must be asked if they believe in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. If they do then all the arguments in this section apply.
Sharia law is just like Jewish law
Sharia law is based upon duality and submission. Sharia law expresses hatred for the Kafir and subjugates all women. Sharia law is designed for world conquest, subjugation, oppression and annihilation of all Kafir culture. Sharia law opposes our Constitution and says that it is to replace our form of government. Jewish law is about how to be a Jew and has no designs on non-Jews. Indeed, Jewish law states that the law of the land trumps Jewish law. Jewish law is not like Sharia law.
You are not a Kafir; you are a person of the Book
Muslims like to say this to Christians and Jews if they show knowledge about Kafirs. Kafirs believe that Mohammed was not a prophet. A person of the Book has to believe that Mohammed was the last of the prophets. A Christian has to believe that Jesus was not the Son of God, there is no Holy Trinity, that the Gospels are in error, and that Jesus was not crucified. Only if you hold these beliefs, then you are a real Christian in the view of Islam. Since no Christian believes a doctrine which opposes the Gospels, a church going Christian is just a Kafir.
A Jew has to believe that the Torah is in error and that only the Koran has the only true stories about Moses, David, Abraham and the other Jewish patriarchs. If, additionally, the Jew accepts that Mohammed is the final prophet of the God of the Jews, then such a Jew is a person of the Book and a real Jew (according to Islam). Otherwise, the Jew is simply a Kafir.
Treat them as a friend
The process of educating others about Political Islam can only start with someone who has agreed to discuss Islam. When we speak one-on-one, the only winning method is to talk as if you were talking to a friend. Never adopt a combative mode. Do not oppose and become emotional. Be a teacher. The dhimmi is a good person who is trying to do the right thing. They do not want to be a bigot and are terrified of being called a racist. They are filled with the media version of Official Islam. They went to school, even college, and they were taught the Official Islam and so it must be right.
Do not oppose them. Give them the added facts about the doctrine and relate everything from the Kafir point of view. For instance, what does it mean to Kafirs when a Muslim woman wears a burka or hijab? Teach them from the Sunna (as was done above); always give the story of Mohammed.
Bridge building and interfaith dialog
One of the most painful things is to watch ministers and rabbis go to interfaith dialogues with Muslims. The dhimmi religious leaders want to build a “bridge”, but don’t know the first thing about how a bridge is built. In the real world, when you build a bridge, you do survey work and learn about what both ends of the bridge will be built on. But the dhimmi bridge builders pride themselves on not knowing the first thing about the Muslim end of the bridge—not the first thing.
The dhimmis build one end for the bridge on their theology and ethics and the other end of the bridge is “tolerance”, another word for saying that they will believe anything they are told by a Muslim. The bridges these religious dhimmi leaders build are based on fantasy. They are not building bridges, but are building rainbows. See how beautiful the illusion is? But, it is still an illusion.
A general condemnation of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists is that all the Kafir religions have reduced their doctrine to compassion and tolerance. That emotional quality is necessary, but it is also necessary to have knowledge and truth to go with it. Otherwise you wind up with idiot compassion. And that is what Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists offer at interfaith dialogues—idiot compassion. They become useful idiots for Islam.
In debating with such dhimmis, praise their desire for peace, but point out their lack of knowledge. They are basically narcissists, who see the argument revolving around their own goodness, not truth. Point out how self-centered they are and how true compassion would include learning about Islam as well.
Show them how Islam has attempted to annihilate all Kafir religions for 1400 years. Show them that the peaceful periods of co-existence are merely temporary rests before annihilation. Make them dwell on suffering of Kafirs. Point out that Muslims never accept any responsibility for this suffering and deny it.
I have seen moderate Islamic web sites
Someone surfs the web and finds a version of a kinder and gentler Islam. Why isn’t that true? Isn’t that hope?
The web site promises a tolerant and loving Islam, not like that terrible extremist Islam. This is the ultimate dream of all Kafirs. The dream is that moderate Muslims will forge a reformation. This dream ignores the simple fact that both the Wahabbis and the Taliban are reform movements that arose during the 20th century. They do not dilute the doctrine found in the Trilogy. They really walk Mohammed’s talk.
So why is the Wahabbi the real Islam and the kinder/gentler Islam not possible? Islam means submission. Muslim means one who has submitted. Islam is the cause; Muslims are the effect. Islam makes Muslims; Muslims do not make Islam. What a Muslim says about Islam is immaterial. There is only one authority, Mohammed.
The kinder/gentler Islam is based upon the Islam preached in Mecca for 13 years. This Islam was followed by the violent jihad of Medina. Two different Mohammeds, two different Islams. So the answer to reform is to use the Meccan Koran and Meccan Islam.
There is a problem, however. Islam is a process; it is not static. Mecca is the beginning part of the process. You can’t just throw it out. Then there is the matter of the Koran clearly stating that the later Islam of Medina is the stronger, better Islam. The Medinan Islam is the completion of Islam— you can’t throw it out.
There is another problem. The Koran is perfect. The Sunna (Mohammed’s sacred pattern of the perfect life) is sacred. How can you reject what is perfect? That would mean labeling Medina as bad and evil. Rejecting Medina would also mean rejecting the code that the Sharia is based upon.
We must end our ignorance and learn about the doctrine and history of Islam. It is no longer hard to do that. The entire corpus of Koran, Sira and Hadith can be held in one hand and has been made easy to read. It is immoral to be so ignorant. Turn to Mohammed, not some imam. Then you will get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Radical Islamic groups
What does “radical” mean? Does it mean killing, robbing, enslaving, assassination, torture, deception, jihad? As long as those behaviors occur with the Kafirs on the receiving end, they are all acts that were performed by Mohammed. If Mohammed performed these actions, then they are not radical. Mohammed defines normative behavior for all Muslims.
What happened in Mumbai, India, the World Trade Towers and Beslan, Russia was not radical. Each and every action at those sites was based upon the Sunna of Mohammed.
Moderates are using the Koran to prove the radicals to be wrong
Anytime anyone references only the Koran when they are talking about Islam, you are dealing with a deceiver or an ignorant person. The Koran is only 16% of the Islamic canon. The Koran does not have enough in it to accomplish even one of Islam’s vaunted Five Pillars. The Sira and the Hadith make up the 84% of Islamic canon that shows a Muslim how to be a Muslim.
The Hadith devotes 21% of its text to jihad [Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad]. The Sira devotes 67% of its words to jihad. Which “moderate” can deny those facts?
The Koran devotes 64% of its words to Kafirs, not Muslims. Out of all this material in the Koran, some of it in Mecca seems to promise goodness to the Kafir, but the later Koran takes away this chance of goodness.
The “radicals,” the Medinan Muslims, are right. The Meccan Muslims are deceivers, perhaps of themselves, but certainly deceivers without any doctrinal basis.
Disregard what anyone says, except Mohammed. Actually, there is one, and only one, Muslim who will give you the straight truth and that is an apostate, one who has left Islam.
Don’t malign Islam's holy prophet
Why is quoting from the Sira and Hadith maligning? Mohammed gave out the rules for rape in jihad. He owned sex slaves, told Muslims it was good to beat their wives, laughed when his enemy’s head was thrown at his feet. It’s in the book. Such behavior goes on for page after page, year after year. Why is referring to facts maligning?
There are fundamentalists in every religion
We must be clear. All that matters is politics. Religion is prayer and Paradise and Judgment Day. These things don’t concern us.
This statement assumes that Islam is comparable to other political systems and religions. What is remarkable is that this statement is only made by those who know nothing about the doctrine of Political Islam. They don’t know Sunna from tuna. Mohammed is perfect. Every Muslim, without exception, is supposed to imitate Mohammed down to the slightest action. Is that fundamentalism? If so, then every Muslim is supposed to be a fundamentalist. It is the Sunna.
Interfaith dialogue will let us meet Muslims and change them
So you change some Muslims, so what? Are you going to change Islam? No. Is a Muslim going to change Islam? No. Islam is found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. That is not going to change.
You can reform a Muslim and make them an apostate, but you cannot reform Islam.
The Koran has lots of peaceful verses
What does that prove? There have been men who killed a wife in jealousy. The fact that the great majority of his life was good does nothing about his being guilty of murder for only a second.
Mein Kampf is only 7% Jew-hatred. That means that it is 93% good and therefore, Mein Kampf is a good book. Ridiculous.
Not all Muslims will deceive you
No, and for many different reasons. But deceiving the Kafir about Islam is ethical. So why do you want to do business with someone who has a sacred directive to lie when it helps Islam?
Every Muslim has three natures—Meccan Islam, Medinan Islam and Kafir. If he is manifesting his Kafir nature and the Golden Rule, then he is honest. So honesty is proof of his Kafir nature, not his Islamic nature.
It all depends on how you interpret it
There is truth to the fact that there are many things in the Koran that depend upon interpretation. As an example, Muslims are to command good and forbid wrong. This comes from a verse in the Koran. Interpretation goes into exactly who does this and how they are to do it. But this is a religious matter.
However, the way that Kafirs are to be treated is not in this category. It is true that the Koran says two different things about how to treat Kafirs. There is both tolerance and jihad. But this is not a matter of interpretation. The tolerance is advised when Islam is weak, jihad comes when it is strong.
The interpretation argument is an attempt to deal with duality in the Koran. Usually, the interpretation argument is related to saying that there are good and bad verses in the Bible. Today Jews don’t use those violent verses to blow people up; they don’t interpret it that way. So, if Muslims would just interpret the Koran in the right way, we could all get along.
But Muslims do interpret the Koran the right way according to Mohammed. The Koran is a dualistic document and that is what Muslims do. Some of them are playing good cop and a few play bad cop. Dualism reigns and the dhimmis pretend that the good cops will interpret the Koran the right way and change the minds of the bad cops. Not! The proper interpretation of Islam is that the bad cops outrank the good cops.
Another approach to interpretation is the Sharia. Sharia is the classical interpretation of Koran and Sunna by the finest Islamic scholars. As an example the Sharia says that jihad is killing Kafirs, not internal struggle. That is the proper interpretation of the Koran.
All of these arguments amount to the same thing—use the doctrine of Political Islam to provide a complete picture of Islam.