Weblogs (German)

Weblogs (English)

Weblogs (other languages)

« Eurabia: The Planned Islamization of Europe — Christian woman raped and burned alive »

PI Series: Reasoning with Muslims — but how?

That is a question we want to put to our readers: How do we reason with Muslims? Or do we even attempt to do so? Is it worth it? Should one even do so with radicals? Do we make it clear that we are familiar with Islamic tricks and ruses? Do we return Taqiyya (coverup) with reverse Taqiyya? What arguments are appropriate? How does one deal best with the anti-logic of Islam?

We are interested in the experiences our readers have had, what strategies and arguments are best. Yohttp://www.pi-news.org/wp/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=1385&message=10ur contributions (to: pi-team@pi-news.net – English postings are welcome) will be checked over by the PI editorial team, and the best ones published on PI. Contribution deadline for this is March 31, 2010.

In order to make things a little clearer about the direction we’re headed here, we present the following examples from practical experience:

Half, False or Distorted Citations from the Bible

(Copyright Note from the Translator: Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.)

For Example: “The body of the woman belongs to her husband.” Muslims speculate in this that we don’t know our Bible. The remedy for that is simply to read it! The correct citation is actually “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7:3-4)

Direct Lies

Muhammad didn’t head up any wars. If that one gets rebutted, then comes the second argument that he was only defending himself. That one is easily rebutted with the Islamic scriptures in hand (Quran, Sira — “biography of the prophet”). After Muhammad left his hometown Mecca, he led an array of wars and campaigns against them and fell upon caravans that were en route to Mecca to harm the city. He also killed or had those killed who were completly uninvolved.

The Old Testament Deception

Muslims love to use proofs from Old Testament passages that fit well into their way of thinking. For example, in connection with the punishment for homosexuality: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13) In fact, that is in there, and 3,000 years ago was very well an account for legal practice. In present-day Judaism, this passage is irrelevant. What God’s will is, and how the Jews are to live had been debated and established in post-biblical writings. Homosexuals, of course, are not punished in Israel. There is even a Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem if, yes if, the Islamic Arab residents do not to hinder it with their threats of attack.

The Monstrous Punishments

How they were utilized against the thieves of Muhammad’s camels (hand’s cut off, feet chopped off, eyes burned out, let die of thirst). Islamic argument: Back then, those were valid laws. Absolutely right. But who made these laws? Muhammad himself, naturally.

The Use of Unclear Language to Cloud the Truth

They assert that “Islam” means “Peace” or “Allahu akbar” is “God be praised.” Taking a look in a dictionary debunks this deception. “Islam” means, in a precise word, “subjugation” (to the will of Allah) and “akbar” is the superlative form of “great,” therefore meaning “the greatest.” Therefore, “Allahu akbar” means “Allah is the greatest” (of all deities).

The West and Christendom Have Committed Evil Things As Well

Totally right. But when was that? Earlier, in part, much earlier. That is a small, but very decisive — THE decisive — difference; it is the difference of the past and the present. Between that which was a long time ago, and that which is today.

» PI: Video of Discussions with Muslims

(Translation of German PI-article: Anders Denken / English contributions to our series are welcome)

PI, 15. Mar 2010 | Print This Post | Email This Post | post a comment
Kategorie: Hypocrisy, Islam;

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading ...

9 comments:

#1 DP111 (15. Mar 2010 21:49)
Discussion with Muslims is pointless. Even if you win the argument it will serves no purpose, as the command to implement sharia worldwide is not dependent on winning a debating point, but a divine order from allah – Muslims believe that, and as it is a belief, it cannot be argued with.

The rest of their beliefs are really of no concern of ours. All that matters is, can we debate Muslims to change the Koran so that sharia is not mandated? We cant.
#2 DP111 (15. Mar 2010 21:56)
One of the best critical blogs on Islam is Faithfreedom.org

Another is Answering Islam.

But as I said earlier, it is a waste of time and energy. It has been tried by the best, such as Ali Sena, Ibn Warraq, Anwar Hussain, to no avail.
#3 DP111 (15. Mar 2010 23:15)
cudgels and carrots … islamic jihad.

now that stealth jihad and the muslim insinuation into western culture seems to be going nicely for them, the question of whether islam will choose to halt terrorist jihad probably has occurred to some.

so, will islam relax and let stealth/political/demographic carry the banner of islam, and will islam abandon terror jihad?

i think not.

why should they? they seem to be doing well with both lines of attack upon the west, and the fact of terror seems not to slow the political advance at all. indeed, the more people they blow up and mutilate, the more the western mainstream media and intellectual elite cow to them, and fawn for their approval.

and, this is the key.

terrorism serves an odd dual role, which roles, upon first blush, seem antithetical.

but, terrorism is both the cudgel and the carrot which drives the success of the stealth/political/demographical attacks of islam upon the west.

terrorism frightens western intellectual elites. since these elites believe in nothing, the specter of annihilationists willing to kill others while killing themselves is truly incomprehensible to the west, and truly frightening. to the euro warm fuzzy socialists, raised upon the dual propositions that nothing is worth killing for, and, deeply convinced in their own empty hearts that if that is true than nothing, surely nothing, can be worth dying for, such fanaticism as display by the islamic terrorist is truly frightening.

the euro’s will concede anything to avoid a fight. they are, simply put, dickless cowards.

so, terrorism and stealth jihad are highly synergistic to islam.

but, the west, through its own devices, has made terrorism its own intellectual carrot by which it seems reasonable to offer more and more concessions to the muslim hordes who press them so. because they have convinced themselves, the euros, that the muzzies are all in fact just like us, and if they are treated decently and given a “share of the pie,” then they will act reasonably.

READ IT ALL

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patri...
#4 DP111 (15. Mar 2010 23:16)
cudgels and carrots … islamic jihad.

now that stealth jihad and the muslim insinuation into western culture seems to be going nicely for them, the question of whether islam will choose to halt terrorist jihad probably has occurred to some.

so, will islam relax and let stealth/political/demographic carry the banner of islam, and will islam abandon terror jihad?

i think not.

why should they? they seem to be doing well with both lines of attack upon the west, and the fact of terror seems not to slow the political advance at all. indeed, the more people they blow up and mutilate, the more the western mainstream media and intellectual elite cow to them, and fawn for their approval.

and, this is the key.

terrorism serves an odd dual role, which roles, upon first blush, seem antithetical.

but, terrorism is both the cudgel and the carrot which drives the success of the stealth/political/demographical attacks of islam upon the west.

terrorism frightens western intellectual elites. since these elites believe in nothing, the specter of annihilationists willing to kill others while killing themselves is truly incomprehensible to the west, and truly frightening. to the euro warm fuzzy socialists, raised upon the dual propositions that nothing is worth killing for, and, deeply convinced in their own empty hearts that if that is true than nothing, surely nothing, can be worth dying for, such fanaticism as display by the islamic terrorist is truly frightening.

the euro’s will concede anything to avoid a fight. they are, simply put, dickless cowards.

so, terrorism and stealth jihad are highly synergistic to islam.

but, the west, through its own devices, has made terrorism its own intellectual carrot by which it seems reasonable to offer more and more concessions to the muslim hordes who press them so. because they have convinced themselves, the euros, that the muzzies are all in fact just like us, and if they are treated decently and given a “share of the pie,” then they will act reasonably.

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patri...
#5 Bloody Mary (16. Mar 2010 16:01)
Reasoning with muslims? FORGET IT!
#6 Ethnographies of Moral Reasoning: Living Paradoxes of a Global Age | Ebook Online Free (16. Mar 2010 19:17)
[...] PI Series: Reasoning with Muslims — but how? – Politically … [...]
#7 DP111 (16. Mar 2010 23:13)
The best way to debate about Islam with Muslims, if forced to, is to stick to the central feature of Islam that affects us – sharia. Get Muslims to disavow sharia as their strategic goal in the West, then you have won. But then go on with the argument that as Muslims are permitted to lie to infidels when it comes to Islam, your Muslim debater, with all respect, cannot be trusted.

Therefore, it is the best interest of all, that Muslims live in a Muslim country where their sharia is the law, and their customs are not regarded barbaric.
#8 Javelin Marketing Co Statement » Blog Archive » Comparisons with Jews Lack Basic Principles (22. Mar 2010 23:19)
[...] by Ursula, regarding the PI series “Reasoning with Muslims — but how?” / Translation: Anders [...]
#9 Javelin Marketing Co Statement » Blog Archive » I always argue with the Constitution (22. Mar 2010 23:19)
[...] Valette regarding the PI Series “Reasoning with Muslims — but how” / Translation: Anders [...]