This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Thursday, 6 December 2012

Should We Debate With Muslims?

To (ex?) Christians, the Church of Interfaith is the true church. It has superseded the Christian church. To Muslims it is a place to sell Islam to guilt-ridden and terribly pious Christians - Christians who have fallen in love with their own pious tolerance of every Muslim act and all things Islamic.

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.

The other ironic thing is many Muslims, just recently, came on the EDL Extra Facebook page to show non-Muslims that they were decent and tolerant people - not “haters of non-Muslims”. They were there to offer us either the Church of Interfaith version of Islam and Muslims; or the taqiyya version. These Facebook Muslims failed big time. They may have been decent people outside of Islam. But when they were being Muslims, they displayed all the negative traits they otherwise deny having: intolerance, intense hatred towards the kuffar, the self-serving notion that all criticism of Islam is either a result of 'ignorance' or an example of mere 'mockery'.

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.

1 comment:

  1. You cannot debate with an ideology that is bereft of tolerance and commands the world to be subjugated under sharia law.