The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

Don't Expect Debate With Muslims

"Insulting the Prophet" usually means simply criticising him. It doesn't stop there. Exactly the same argument is used by Muslims about the Koran and about anything Islamic.

“[Muslims] uniformly say …  that [we are] too stupid to bother debating, as if the falsity of what [we] say is self-evident; or that [we are] too evil to debate, as they don't want the taint of debating a greasy Islamophobe; or that [we are] too insignificant to debate, as their stature is so much greater than [ours] that they don't want to give [our] views credibility [the Leftist No Platform Policy] by engaging us in discussion.” –Robert Spencer

One thing is obvious. There's no point in 'debating' with most Muslims because there never is any real debate. That's got nothing to do with non-Muslims disagreeing with Muslims. It's because there is no true - or any kind! - of debate in the first place. Islam does not allow Muslims to sincerely debate. Their culture and environment does not allow them to do so. Debate is more or less equal to apostasy because debate about Islam must mean criticism (or ‘mockery’ or “ignorance” as Muslims call it). Thus anything that passes for debate, say at a Church of Interfaith meeting, in the Guardian, on the BBC, on the letters page of a local newspaper, etc. will simply be either Islamic proselytising or Islamic taqiyya (lies and/or distortion in order to advance – not debate – Islam).

There is an exception to this. The EDL, and other counter-jihadists, should never turn down an opportunity to debate with Muslims in public. That public debate will show people, especially the people who aren't sure about Islam, the true nature of Islam and what it does to the Muslim mind. Then again, Muslims agree with this stance too! They too only ever debate with non-Muslims when it is in public - on the BBC or whatever. If it's not public, and therefore not to their advantage, they never debate with non-Muslims. Even at Church of Interfaith 'meetings' the movement is all one way: Muslims proselytising to Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. Muslims will never allow any true debate about Islam at a C of I meeting. They are there solely to sell Islam to the kuffar.

Muslims cannot reject or even criticise Islam. If they do so in Muslim countries they are killed or imprisoned. If they do so in the UK, they are ostracised by their community. In any case, less educated Muslims tie Islam (correctly, perhaps) to their identity and community; even if they have never critically analysed Islam a single time in their entire lives. To criticise, let alone reject, Islam is to reject their family, friends, community and identity.

All this shows, unequivocally, that there can never be true debate with Muslims. Not because non-Muslims don't want to debate, but because Muslims (as Muslims) are culturally and cognitively incapable of debating their religion; not only with the kuffar but even with their fellow Muslims.