Factual Persuasion: Example Cases
The doctrine of Political Islam provides the strongest argument against Islam. The second strongest argument is the history of jihad. In debating about Islam do not engage the others’ arguments on their points. Instead create a new basis by bringing in facts from Islam’s political nature, Kafirs, duality and submission.
Instead of resisting your opponents, use the principle of duality to show both sides of the contradiction. Point out that Islam always has two ways to treat the Kafirs and what you want to do is provide the rest of the doctrine that is left out of Official Islam. The apologists and Muslims present their viewpoint so all you want to do is to show the Kafir viewpoint.
All of the arguments found here are based on having read the Koran, Sira, and Hadith. You cannot argue about Islam, if you do not know Islamic doctrine.
Your continual strategy is to stay with the Koran and Mohammed. When the other person brings up Christianity, stay with Islam If they want to talk about Christianity, say you will compare Jesus with Mohammed, but stay with Mohammed. If they want to talk about the Crusades, say they were in response to the jihad that conquered Christian lands. And jihad comes straight from the Islamic political doctrine.
If you will stay with the foundational doctrine, you will always prevail and persuade. The Koran and Mohammed are so negative that you can’t lose.
Nearly every argument you hear is from the media and the media never talks about doctrine. So when you speak about doctrine, you are presenting new material. Your debate opponents have opinions; you have facts. Ask them where they got their arguments. You will be glad to tell them where you get your facts.
When they tell you about what their Muslim friend says, tell them that you have a Muslim friend called Mohammed. Your Muslim friend outranks their Muslim friend. If they get their information from some Muslim expert, the strategy does not change—go to Mohammed. He is the supreme expert; their expert is second rank, no matter who he is.
It is also a good time to ask if they have any Muslim apostate friends. This brings up the chance to introduce what apostasy means in the Hadith.
When they say that what Muslims do is in response to our failures, colonialism, foreign policy, whatever, show them how everything Muslims do is based upon the doctrine.
All of these case studies are based upon the doctrine of Islam.
Can you read Arabic?
You may be asked if you can read Arabic. The implication is that Arabic is a unique language that can’t be translated and therefore, how could you know what you are talking about? First, the Koran claims to be a universal message for all humanity for all times. If the message is universal, then it must be understood by all. If everybody cannot understand the message, then by definition it is not universal. So, which is it?
Another thing to consider is that over half of the Koran is about Kafirs and politics. Do you really think that a political message about a Kafir cannot be understood by the Kafir? If so, what is that message that cannot be understood?
Also, it must be made clear which Arabic is being spoken about. The Arabic of the Koran is classical Arabic which is about as similar to modern Arabic as the English of Chaucer is to modern English. Said in another way, not even a modern Arab can read classical Arabic. It is estimated that fewer than a thousand scholars who read classical Arabic can compose a paragraph in classical Arabic script on a random topic.
And what about the billion-plus Muslims who don’t understand modern Arabic? If it is necessary to understand classical Arabic to understand what the Koran is about, then how can all those non-Arabic-speaking Muslims understand the Koran? And if they cannot understand the Koran, how can they be Muslims?
Ask the person who presents the argument if they have any opinions about the doctrine of Christianity. Then ask them if they read Hebrew, Aramaic or Biblical Greek? If they do not read those languages how can they form an opinion about something they have to read in translation?
Of course they can read it and form an opinion, the same way we can read and understand the Koran.
A secondary question is why would anyone want to believe that the Koran couldn’t be understood? What is the purpose of believing that out of all the books in the world, it is the one that cannot be translated and understood?
The Koran is only 14% of the total doctrine [The Relative Sizes of the Trilogy Texts] as found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Would the questioner believe that the other 86% of the doctrine, the Sira and Hadith, not be understood as well?
Well, the Christians / Jews did...
There are two different ways to deal with comments about Christianity and Judaism.
Reject all conversation that is not about Islam. Reject all comparative religious talk. Insist on talking solely about Islam. If they want to talk about Christianity/Judaism fine, but don’t respond, except to say that you want to talk about Islam, not comparative religion. When it is your turn, return to Islam. Refuse to engage in comparisons. Islam must be taken on its own. There is no comparison. Insist on discussing the Sunna and the Koran.
Ask if they have a reason that they don’t want to talk about Islam, since they want to change the subject. The average person knows next to nothing about this subject and sometimes this gambit is merely a way to steer the conversation into a familiar ground.
They are just trying to prove that Islam is not any worse than Christianity. At this point, welcome the chance to compare the two, but choose the ground of comparison. The best place to start is with the founders. Compare Mohammed to Christ. The other good comparison is in ethics. Compare Islam’s dualistic ethics to Christian unitary, Golden Rule ethics.
Another version of this argument is that the person will compare some failed Christian to a “good” Muslim they know at work. It is fairly useless to do personal comparisons. How do you choose which Muslim out of 1.5 billion Muslims and which Christian do you choose out of a couple billion Christians?
A variation on the “Well, the Christians did …” is “What about the Crusades”? This is the time to say you welcome a comparison of the Crusades to jihad. Start with the question of why the Crusades were needed. Islamic jihad invaded the Christian Middle East and subjugated them. The Crusades were a response to a cry for help by the tortured and oppressed Christians in their native land. Did the Christians do some wrong things? Yes, but notice that the Crusades have been over nearly a thousand years. Jihad is active today. And while we are at it, why do academic libraries have many books on the Crusades, which lasted only 200 years, and so few on jihad, which has been going on for 1400 years? The West has analyzed the Crusades, ad nauseam, and has barely looked at jihad.
I know this Muslim and he says...
Why is the Muslim an expert on Islam? Remember, the average Muslim knows very little about the doctrine of Islam. Why? Because, historically the imams have acted as the high priests of Islam and they have never made the doctrine simple to understand. That is one way they keep their prestige and power.
It does not make any difference who the Muslim is. Once you know something about the doctrine of the Trilogy, you can say that you also know a Muslim, and his name is Mohammed, and what you say comes from the Sunna. In short, your Muslim, Mohammed, can trump your friend’s Muslim on any issue of doctrine. If the Muslim your friend knows says something about Islam that agrees with Mohammed, then it is right. If what he says contradicts Mohammed, then he is wrong. Mohammed is the only Muslim who counts.
I know this Muslim and he is a nice man
So a man is nice and he is a Muslim. What does that prove about Islam? He may follow the Golden Rule and not Islamic doctrine. That is, he may be a poor practitioner of Islam and a good person.
The first question to ask about “nice” Muslims is do they believe in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed? They will say yes. Now is the time to explain about the Islam of Mecca and the Islam of Medina. It is also time to explain about dualism and how Islam always has two faces.
Stay with the doctrine and the history of Islam, never get personal and talk about an individual Muslim. Actually, there is one way to talk about any Muslim, just show how what they do and say follows the doctrine.
Muslims rejecting Sharia
You will discover that some Muslims say that they reject Sharia. What they mean is that they reject some parts of the Sharia. Since Sharia covers the details of the Five Pillars, including prayer, to reject all of the Sharia is to become an apostate.
The first question to ask any Muslim who rejects part of Sharia, is exactly what part they reject. Since the rules of Sharia are based upon the Sunna of Mohammed and the Koran, that means rejecting the Koran and the Sunna. But a Muslim must accept all of the Koran as the exact perfect manifestation of Allah. Therefore, the Sharia that is based on the Koran must be accepted as valid. In the same way, Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and is to be imitated in all matters. To reject Sharia based upon Sunna is to be an apostate.
Here is a summary of the proper Islamic attitude about Sharia:
- The word Sharia means “road,” and the implied imagery of the term is that our life is like a road in a desert, with God the oasis we seek. Thus the primary focus of Sharia law is on humankind’s journey toward intimacy with our Creator, and the Sharia’s purpose is to establish the links or guideposts between God and humanity. The Sharia is the body of divine guidance, its structure, format, and construct. It is important to Muslims because it is the guide by which the Muslim determines what is good or ethical. To Muslim ears, “Sharia law” means all that is constitutional, ethical, right, and compassionate—the conditions necessary for what Americans call the pursuit of happiness. This is why many Muslims seek to base their national legal systems on Sharia law, for that is the highest authority they can claim on their behalf in correcting wrongs. [What is Right with Islam, Imam Feisal Rauf, Harper San Francisco, 2004, page 150]
That is not the real Islam
When you bring up an atrocity by Islam—the 9/11 attacks, Beslan, Russia, Mumbai India—a common apologist response is that that is not the real Islam. Ask them how they know what is and is not “real” Islam. Real Islam comes from Mohammed and he frequently launched sneak attacks against Kafirs. For example, he attacked the Jews of Khaybar in a surprise raid in the morning (his favorite sneak attack time of day). After he had killed enough Jews so that the rest submitted, he then tortured some to find more buried treasure while his men raped many of the women. That is how Mohammed did atrocities, so murderous sneak attacks against civilian Kafirs is Sunna. If there is anyway that the event is similar to the Sunna, then it is the real Islam.
If you are quoting the Sharia, then it is the real Islam, by definition, as are the Koran and the Sunna.
They don’t really believe that
You reveal some horrific part of the doctrine and the other person says that Muslims don’t really believe that. What do Muslims call themselves? The Believers. What do they believe? The Koran and the Sunna. They say that is what they believe. Now ask two questions: have you read and understood the Koran or the Sunna? If not, how do you know anything about what Muslims believe?
I know this Muslim and he is not violent
This is a restating of, “I know this Muslim and he is good man.” He may be a non-practicing Muslim and a good man who follows the Golden Rule.
A non-violent Muslim believes in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. The Koran suggests both violence and tolerance against the Kafirs. Today in America, the political power of Islam is just getting started, so Islam is still weak. When Mohammed was weak in Mecca, he did not kill anybody. Islam is still in the first phase of jihad here.
We know from the Sira that many Muslims just don’t have the stomach for the violence. The Sira shows that Muslims can support jihad in many ways, besides personal violence. The “peaceful” Muslim you know is commanded to give money to Islamic charities and the charities give the money to the actual fighters.
What about the violence in the Old Testament?
Apologists love to bring up the violence in the Old Testament to show that Islam is no better or worse than Christianity and Judaism. This is another version of “I don’t know anything about Islam so I will talk about what I do know—Christianity and Judaism.”
There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison: measure the differences in violence.
The first item is the definition of violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside either Islam or Judaism is what they do to the “other”, or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note, however, both are violence for a vegan or a PETA member, but it is not violence against them.
We now need to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called “fighting in Allah’s cause”, or jihad.
We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed’s biography. The Hadith are his traditions—what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna. It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:
Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year. All of the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad—world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual and the Hadith is a tactical manual of jihad.
Now let’s look at the Hebrew Bible. When all of the political violence is counted, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to political violence as opposed to 31% of the Islamic Trilogy.
When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible. The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.
Then there is the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible is for that particular historical time and place.
Here is a measurement of the difference. Jihad has killed about 270 million non-Muslims over the last 1400 years. Jewish political violence killed 300,000 (an order of magnitude surmise) since the days of the Old Testament. As a comparison, jihad has killed thousands of times more people than Jewish political violence.
These figures are not about moderate Muslims or extremist Muslims. These figures are about the doctrine that Muslims say is perfect. All Muslims, without exception, believe in the perfect Koran and the perfect Sunna. Now, how much of it they are aware of is another question. But the doctrine is there for all of us to see and study.
The violence in the Trilogy is for all Muslims, in all places and for all time. Jihad is to stop only when every Kafir submits. Look at Mohammed, the perfect example. He was involved with violence until the day he died. And on his deathbed he directed violence against the Kafirs when he said in his last breath: “Let there be neither Christian or Jew left in Arabia.”
If Islam is so violent, how can it be so successful?
The Sira records that when Islam committed violence, it attracted new followers. As Osama bin Laden said: “People like a winning horse.” After 9/11 in the US, new followers joined Islam. Communism was a political system that preached, promised and delivered violence and it attracted many people. Many people love violence. Have you noticed that in Hollywood violence is piled upon violence and people line up to pay money to see it.
There are different kinds of Islam
The differences in the various sects of Islam are due to religion, not politics. Take the Sunni/Shia split, its largest division. Both Sunnis and Shias completely agree on how to treat Kafirs and jihad. All Muslims subscribe to one of five schools of the Sharia and the Sharia’s position regarding Kafirs and jihad is similar for all the sects.
The only big difference is when to use violent jihad or peaceful jihad against the Kafirs.
Hadith—some of those aren’t real
If you quote a hadith to a Muslim and they don’t like it, they will say, “Well, some of those hadiths are not acceptable (or not true or some other disclaimer).” Actually, when Muslims say this, they are practicing taqiyya, sacred deception and duality. If it is a hadith, then a Muslim cannot be denied the right to follow it. The Hadith are Sunna, the perfect example of Mohammed.
The hadiths cited in this book come from the very best collections— Al-Bukhari and Abu Muslim. These hadiths are the creme de la creme of hadiths and are called sahih (genuine) by top Islamic scholars. When Bukhari made his collection, he threw out 99% of those he found. Those 99% are the unsure ones, the other 1% that are used here are authoritative.
So the hadiths quoted here are genuine and real.