Counter-Islamophobia Toolkit - The supposedly best strategies on countering "Islamophobic" narratives

[Manwithn0n0men]

@Iwasamwillbe


The reason why it doesn’t make sense to interpret this to be general attitude towards non-muslims, is because at the time there was a large war waged by polytheists because they got assmad over their idols being disparaged.

However that is not the sole way that has been interpreted historically

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

@Iwasamwillbe
Before I start I must disclose that 22:39 is the first verse that talks about warfare.

“Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.”

Quran 22:39 being the first Quranic verse to discuss warfare is a complete lie, both in terms of chronology and in how the Quran was arranged.

The verse is also being brought out of context (how ironic) to say that Quranic war was merely in self-defense, while in actuality, it was a deceitful piece of rhetoric used to claim that the Quraysh's defenses against initial Muslim threats of aggression were somehow morally bankrupt.

As for the verse you mentioned, read the verses before and afterwards because it reveals that it is apparent that the polytheists being ambushed are in fact hostile and armed.

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” -2:190


“But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” -2:192

The reason why it doesn’t make sense to interpret this to be general attitude towards non-muslims, is because at the time there was a large war waged by polytheists because they got assmad over their idols being disparaged.

I already posted the link that refuted these boilerplate Muslim apologetics, and I will post it again.

Here is an even more relevant quote from that article:

Why They are Wrong

The verses (2:191-194) were narrated at a time when Muhammad had just migrated to Medina, where the Quraish had no real interest in him. It was not until he began raiding their caravans that hostilities resumed. The immediate historical context is that Muhammad was trying to justify his deadly raids during the "sacred months."

Muhammad said that "fitna is worse than killing" (thus distinguishing the two). If by fitna, he meant ' killing', 'persecution' or 'oppression', then he would have used those words. Instead, he used a word that means 'sedition' and is tied to a lack of belief in Allah as a monotheistic god, since that is the only authority against which the Quraish were rebelling.

This is supported by the rest of the passage. In verse 193, Muhammad said that the fighting is to continue until all worship is for Allah:

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

A careful reading of verse 193 exposes something else that Discover the Truth is hiding. Even when the "persecution" has passed, believers are still justified in attacking zalimuna. This word is translated as "wrong-doer" elsewhere in the Quran. It is associated with polytheism (2:92), disbelief (2:254, 9:23), not judging by what Allah revealed in the Quran (5:45) and even Christian worship (3:94, 10:68-69) . So, Muslims are to fight until outward religion is for Allah and even the very lack of belief is stamped out.

Beyond this, Muhammad was laying the groundwork for a conquest of Mecca. Rather than be content with life in Medina (free of persecution), he ordered his people to "kill them wherever you find them" (an incredibly reckless statement in any context) and to "turn them out from where they have turned you" (meaning Mecca). This isn't about fighting in self-defense. It is about marching an army into another city and killing anyone who resists.

The historical progression is that the Muslims proceeded to do exactly that. Once they took charge of Mecca, they gave the residents three months to convert to Islam or be killed. Freedom of religion has not existed in Arabia since... yet DTT tells us that verse 193 means that "man is free to follow his religion without getting persecuted, oppressed for their beliefs by tyrants."

The straight-forward interpretation of an apparent command to fight unbelievers (partly on the basis of their unbelief) until religion is for Allah is consistent with the behavior of the Muslim community in the first century following Muhammad's death. Offensive Jihad was waged wherever it could against hapless populations for reasons having only to do with their non-Muslim status. Those who fought back were killed and those who accepted a subjugated state were (generally) allowed to live under Muslim rule until they converted under the burden of dhimmitude.

 

[maalikthefakemuzzie]

Quran 22:39 being the first Quranic verse to discuss warfare is a complete lie,

This is some real galaxybrain-tier claims you are making. The evidence regarding 22:39 as the first verse regarding warfare can be found at tafsir Ibn Kathir, Right here. I would also like you to show me some evidence from authentic ahadith that say it is not the first verse.

I already posted the link that refuted these boilerplate Muslim apologetics, and I will post it again.

Here is an even more relevant quote from that article:

Yes, raids against Quraysh polytheists were orchestrated because it was an ambush, the nature of an ambush is applying the element of surprise. They didn't do it for no reason, they were expelled out of mecca to Medina due to threats of assassination from the Quraysh tribes.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

This is some real galaxybrain-tier claims you are making. The evidence regarding 22:39 as the first verse regarding warfare can be found at tafsir Ibn Kathir, Right here.

Claims that are wrong, since verses about warfare already existed in previous suras, such as Sura 2, of verse of which we literally just talked about a few posts ago.

Even if we were to grant that the Quranic verse arrangements are so disjointed chronologically that an individual verse can predate another verse despite the former verse existing in a later sura, it still wouldn't mean that those verses were actually talking about self-defense. Muhammad generally had a very strange view of what "oppression" means, which included "defending yourself against Muslim aggression", as shown below.

Yes, raids against Quraysh polytheists were orchestrated because it was an ambush, the nature of an ambush is applying the element of surprise. They didn't do it for no reason, they were expelled out of mecca to Medina due to threats of assassination from the Quraysh tribes.

Wrong again. The Muslims (or, more accurately, Muhammad himself) fled (i.e. wasn't expelled) to Medina after he made a treaty of war against Mecca. It was after this that Muhammad was barred from entering Mecca by the Quraysh polytheists, something that I frankly find no reason to fault the Quraysh for.

 

[maalikthefakemuzzie]

Claims that are wrong, since verses about warfare already existed in previous suras, such as Sura 2, which we literally just talked about a few posts ago.

What if I told you the Quran is not arranged in chronological order but longest to shortest? Because this sounds like you are misassuming the former instead of the latter. And quite frankly I really don't care what you think, Ibn Kathir is a reliable narrator and he states that this is the first verse talking about warfare. And speaking of reliable narrators.
EDIT: I should clarify that is aranged from longest to shortest with exception surah fatiha at the beginning. This is because Al-fatiha is a fundamentally important surah muslims are supposed to recite.

Wrong again. The Muslims (or, more accurately, Muhammad himself) fled (i.e. wasn't expelled) to Medina after he made a treaty of war against Mecca.

That you link you just showed cited Ibn Hisham/Ishaq. This is a pretty big mistake you are making because his narrations are unreliable due to not naming his teachers in the process and that sahih bukhari or sahih muslim are more authentic sources.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

What if I told you the Quran is not arranged in chronological order but longest to shortest? Because this sounds like you are misassuming the former instead of the latter.

It's not arranged from longest to shortest either, so I don't know where you got that from.

And quite frankly I really don't care what you think, Ibn Kathir is a reliable narrator and he states that this is the first verse talking about warfare. And speaking of reliable narrators.

And he's wrong on that point then. Even if he wasn't, it wouldn't matter.

That you link you just showed cited Ibn Hisham/Ishaq. This is a pretty big mistake you are making because his narrations are unreliable due to not naming his teachers in the process and that sahih bukhari or sahih muslim are more authentic sources.

What the hell does not naming one's teachers have to do with the authenticity of the narratives one recollects, especially when the narratives are generally seen as reliable by hadith scholars, despite the reservations of some? Hell, I would consider Ibn Ishaq the more authoritative source, since Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim both came much later than him, and Ibn Hisham saw fit to edit out "distasteful things" from Ibn Ishaq's work (criterion of embarrassment and all that).

To my knowledge, neither Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim seriously contradict Ibn Ishaq anyway.

 

[maalikthefakemuzzie]

@Iwasamwillbe
So far you have not provided any evidence proving that 22:39 was not the first verse that talks about warfare. If you keep this up I will continuously label you as a galaxybrain because this is absurd.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

@Iwasamwillbe
So far you have not provided any evidence proving that 22:39 was not the first verse that talks about warfare. If you keep this up I will continuously label you as a galaxybrain because this is absurd.

Did I not just say that even if Ibn Kathir wasn't wrong on 22:39 being the first verse to discuss warfare, it still wouldn't matter?

Learn to read, dumbass.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

@Iwasamwillbe
So far you have not provided any evidence proving that 22:39 was not the first verse that talks about warfare. If you keep this up I will continuously label you as a galaxybrain because this is absurd.

So while I've not spend a lot of time studying Islamic clerical principles I want to see if your a reasonable enough lad to debate with

you understand these interpretations are a reflection [in regards to War, Terrorism, "Things the state does] are all products of the place of Islam within its political world. And we could both dig in and fine different interpretations influenced by 1300+ years of political context?

 

[maalikthefakemuzzie]

Did I not just say that even if Ibn Kathir wasn't wrong on 22:39 being the first verse to discuss warfare, it still wouldn't matter?

Learn to read, dumbass.

You are asserting 22:39 is not the first verse regarding warfare, despite numerous tafsirs claiming it is. You are asserting a contradiction that it is not the first verse regarding warfare.

It is this evidence I am demanding because 2:191 did not come before 22:39, you thought because you assumed the Quran was ordered Chronologically. And thereligionofpeace.com does not at all prove the muslims were intial aggressors, but that they should not hold back in battle.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

You are asserting 22:39 is not the first verse regarding warfare, despite numerous tafsirs claiming it is.

Well you could list them then. Or not. It proves nothing regardless.

You are asserting a contradiction that it is not the first verse regarding warfare.

It is this evidence I am demanding because 2:191 did not come before 22:39, you thought because you assumed the Quran was ordered Chronologically.

Which is a straw man argument, as I've never assumed that. My argument was that Surah 2 (and its verses) predates Surah 22 in order of the time it was revealed, the same way Surah 96 predates Surah 1.

And thereligionofpeace.com does not at all prove the muslims were intial aggressors, but that they should not hold back in battle.

Wrong again, Ahmed.

 

[maalikthefakemuzzie]

Which is a straw man argument, as I've never assumed that. My argument was that Surah 2 (and its verses) predates Surah 22 in order of the time it was revealed, the same way Surah 96 predates Surah 1.

Citations or it Didn't happen.
EDIT: lol you couldn't find it.

Wrong again, Ahmed.

1.) Hamza beat up Abu Jahl because he previously beaten up our prophet (PBUH)
2.) They were fully justified because they were forcibly expelled from their homes which was Mecca as compensaton. Same way you have the right to kill an intruder if you were in the United States.
3.) The third link does not prove that the hijra to Medina was not due to Meccan threats.

Since you are using it as an ultimate authority, 2 can play at this game.

iJihad: The Masked Arab

In this episode we deconstruct two videos in a series by The Masked Arab where he argues that ISIS represents the teaching of Islam. Although a speaker of Ar...

www.youtube.com

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Citations or it Didn't happen

1.) Hamza beat up Abu Jahl because he previously beaten up our prophet (PBUH)
2.) They were fully justified because they were forcibly expelled from their homes which was Mecca as compensaton. Same way you have the right to kill an intruder if you were in the United States.
3.) The third link does not prove that the hijra to Medina was not due to Meccan threats.

Since you are using it as an ultimate authority, 2 can play at this game.

iJihad: The Masked Arab

In this episode we deconstruct two videos in a series by The Masked Arab where he argues that ISIS represents the teaching of Islam. Although a speaker of Ar...

www.youtube.com

1. Hadith or it didn't happen. Because it looks very much like it didn't.
2. They were "forcibly expelled" because Muhammad continually threatened the Meccans, even making treaties of war against them. No matter what, the Quraysh did nothing wrong.
3. Probably because calling on someone to prove a negative in this context is disingenuous as fuck, especially when the first paragraph of their text makes it clear who the initial threat-maker was.

Only Muhammad was in danger at Mecca - and this was after he made a treaty of war against the local residents while living among them, thirteen years into his preaching.

And please spare me the YouTube apologetics from pseudo-intellectuals such as Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi (who will be mostly be referred to as "the Andalusian" going forward). Your attempt at tu quoque about appealing to authority is even more hilarious considering you've been shilling this guy since your first post in this thread.

Edit: And of course the Masked Arab responded to the Andalusian.

 

[maalikthefakemuzzie]

1. Hadith or it didn't happen. Because it looks very much like it didn't.
2. They were "forcibly expelled" because Muhammad continually threatened the Meccans, even making treaties of war against them. No matter what, the Quraysh did nothing wrong.
3. Probably because calling on someone to prove a negative in this context is disingenuous as fuck, especially when the first paragraph of their text makes it clear who the initial threat-maker was.

1.) You can read the conversion to Islam section on Hamza ibn Abdul-muttalib's wikipedia page citation: Muhammad ibn Saad. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabair vol. 3.
2.) Stop using religionofpeace.com and start using hadiths. Does it say that muhammad (PBUH) was threatening meccans before going through with an all out war? Quote the hadiths that say so. Did he (PBUH) attack caravans? Quote the hadiths that say so. I do this and I expect you do the same.
3.) Asadullah ali has a PHD in islamic studies.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

1.) You can read the conversion to Islam section on Hamza ibn Abdul-muttalib's wikipedia page
2.) Stop using religionofpeace.com and start using hadiths. Does it say that muhammad (PBUH) was threatening meccans before going through with an all out war? Quote the hadiths that say so. Did he (PBUH) attack caravans? Quote the hadiths that say so. I do this and I expect you do the same.
3.) Asadullah ali has a PHD in islamic studies.

1. Many of the Wikipedia pages on Islamic subjects are deliberately biased in favor of Islam, and the page still doesn't prove anything in your side's favor, unless you automatically interpreted "attacked the Prophet and abused and insulted him" to mean physical violence, of which there was no corroborating evidence of.
2. The Religion of Peace directly cites authentic and reliable hadith, so this "start using hadith" line is a pretty transparent attempt to move the goalposts. Especially since you only quoted the hadith once during this entire conversation, to "prove" that Quran 22:39 was the first Quran verse about warfare.
3. I don't care that the Andalusian has a PhD in "Islamic Studies", and to say he's right just because of that is not only an appeal to authority, but naked credentialism.

This isn't even going into the supposed "value" of an Islamic Studies degree anyway.

Edit: I saw that you edited in the Wikipedia page's citation of Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir Vol. III. It still proves nothing in favor of you, however.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

Holy fucking christ who the fuck cares if Hadn Bin Fucked slapped and pulled Abdul Ibn Shitsmear's hair in 1307 and that's what justifies Islam's violent conquests. Sit down and read this conversation from start to finish. It's enough to give you an aneurysm.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Holy fucking christ who the fuck cares if Hadn Bin Fucked slapped and pulled Abdul Ibn Shitsmear's hair in 1307 and that's what justifies Islam's violent conquests. Sit down and read this conversation from start to finish. It's enough to give you an aneurysm.

I'm sorry and I feel for your pain, but you should understand that all those conquests were in self-defense, at least according to humongous brains like Maalik and the Andalusian.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

I'm sorry and I feel for your pain, but you should understand that all those conquests were in self-defense, at least according to humongous brains like Maalik and the Andalusian.

A muzzie or muzzie apologist in 2019 making up reasons why muzzies are in the right when they do muzzie shit isn't interesting or strange, it's par for the course. They can never admit that Muhammad did something wrong or that certain things done a thousand years ago might not be very nice by today's standards. Muhammad is blameless and virtuous in all things.

 

[Ira the Weatherman]

Let's take a look at their problems and solutions.

Ten Dominant Narratives of Islamophobia

• Threat to security
• Challenging and contextualising constructions of Muslim ‘threat’

So meta-arguments aimed at nitpicking the form of argument made that Islam is a threat, rather than the substance. This will neither settle the issue, nor appease the people you're trying to convince.

• Unassimilable
• Building inclusive nations: challenging exclusive and discriminatory national projects

'People feel Muslims don't assimilate? Clearly the problem is that everyone else isn't inclusive enough and should be forced to be more tolerant!'

• Demographic threat and proselytization (denouncing the alleged increase of the number of Muslim individuals in European countries and the supposed consequent spread of Islamic religion at the expense of the state)
• Cultural compatibility and conviviality: challenging the narrative separation of cultural and ethnic groups

Another non-answer that doesn't address the issue, but tries to reframe it as obtusely as possible. 'It's not Islamization at all if we just pretend we're all the same happy family!'

Also, imagine denying that a religion like Islam is proselytising by nature, and even going so far to imply that believing that is 'Islamophobia'. This is some Orwellian shit.

• Theocracy (the supposed prevalence of the exclusive reference to religious norms and values made by Muslims when dealing with societal matters)
• Elaborating plurality: challenging narratives of Muslim singularity

Fair enough, not all Muslims are religious fundamentalists and it is wise to point this out. HOWEVER, I can see this failing hard because you'll have to balance this against the doublethink of not offending the hardcore Muslims by implying that more secular behaviour is good and desirable.

(I'm guessing they switched 5 and 6 up by mistake)

• Threat to identity
• Building inclusive futures

We're inclusive enough. That's the issue people are having: that we're doing all the effort in being accommodating to Muslims, and they feel its not being reciprocated and may lead to a parallel society. They want to see assimilation from a group they've invited been told to accept into their countries, not more demands that they shut up about it and be more tolerant.

• Gender inequality
• Challenging narratives of sexism

Read: ignore reasonable fears that hardline interpretations of a 1400 year-old Abrahamic religion might encourage sexism by just redefining what 'sexism' means.

• Ontological diversity (Muslims and Islam as essentially and irremediably different from non- Muslim population and the associated moral landscape)
• Deracialising the state: challenging institutional narratives

Nigga what. How is 'deracialisation' going to address the ideological in-group/out-group dynamic that a multi-ethnic, proselytising faith has constructed itself. Commandments strictly regulating marriages and interactions between non-Muslims and others, and the 'Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb' dynamic aren't the result of 'institutional narratives', they're core tenets of the fucking religion since it has existed.

• Innate violence
• Emphasising humanity and Muslim normalisation: challenging narratives of division

Eh, reasonable enough. There's not a lot else you're going to do about that except maybe rewrite portions of the Quran that the critics deem to be violent, and good fucking luck with that.

• Incomplete citizenship
• Creating Muslim space(s)

So the solution to a perceived lack of integration by Muslims is... to advocate actual institutional segregation through safe spaces? Are these people fucking high?

• Homophobia (Islam equates with bigotry and thus intolerant towards homosexuals)
• Challenging distorted representation: verity and voice

The fuck is this even supposed to mean.

tl;dr these people are batshit and trying to use Postmodernist lingo to not address any fears people might have about Islam. If anything, this will confirm their fears because it basically condones lack of integration and encourages it further by portraying Muslims as a special protected group to which the rules of law and logic should not apply, and everyone else should treat them with special reverence.

 

[Dreamland]

So the solution to a perceived lack of integration by Muslims is... to advocate actual institutional segregation through safe spaces? Are these people fucking high?

No they're just retarded at best and creating treasonous agitprop at worst. The toolkit overall screams "The left can't meme, so we must mobilize the fourth estate" with it's hamfisted directives and strictures on how to construct an idea.
The fact of the matter is that even though they can start whinging about "das rascist" and that they mean no harm, everyone with an isis.webm gore folder can just dump it and say that the will of the ummah is to shed the blood of the kuffar and munafiq to make for a much more compelling (and truthful) argument.