When I say win an argument, I mean actually prove them wrong and change their mind. There are obviously many reasons why this is so unlikely to happen, primarily due to the fact that prejudice of this nature is deep-rooted and engrained, and likely to be the result of parental or peer influence. In extreme cases it goes beyond casual racism and xenophobia, and is based on unpleasant political and ideological racial views.
Argue with an Islamophobe and you’ll consistently come up against the same obstacles every time. The first one is the claim that they’re not being racist, because ‘Muslim’ isn’t a race. Factually correct of course, but this is obfuscation and an excuse so flimsy that it’s transparent to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. Taking the EDL as an example, you don’t have to spend too much time watching footage of their demos and screenshots of their Facebook pages to realise that the word Muslim has simply replaced the word ‘paki’ as a catch-all term for someone of Asian or Arab descent. In many cases the word ‘paki’ is still used freely and unashamedly. If you analyse the accusations made and the language used, they mirror the age-old formula used by racists to demonise and dehumanise black people. They’re violent, savage, dishonest, lazy, thieving, misogynistic, they’re after our women etc.
The second obstacle you’ll encounter is the claim that they don’t hate Muslims, just Islam. They’ll tell you it’s a religion of hate, that it was spread by the sword, that the Qur’an and the examples of Muhammad teach them to kill non-believers, subjugate women, carry out jihad to gain global dominance and implement sharia law. They might even be able to recite a couple of misquoted, decontextualised extracts from the Qur’an or Hadiths to prove their point.
If you’ve done your homework you can counter every one of these claims using the same sources, and a bit of common sense. At this point it can go one of two ways. You could get called an appeaser followed by a few choice insults and the argument will end, which in itself is a victory. But Islamophobia has become a cottage industry run by some particularly devious and hateful people. At some point in the evolution of Islamophobia there must have been a realisation that misquoting, decontextualising and deliberately misinterpreting texts wouldn’t fool everybody, and could be countered by more knowledgeable opponents. They needed something else, something you can’t argue against, the ultimate get-out clause.
If you’re up against one of the more dedicated, conscientious Islamophobes you need to know two words. Dhimmi and Taqiyya. To be able to progress onto the next level and do battle with this more sophisticated foe, one must first learn about Dhimmitude and Taqiyya. Dhimmi is a personal favourite of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and SIOA. It’s a condescending insult that implies that a non-Muslim is being used as a doormat or being accommodating to Muslims. Implying that to oppose Islamophobia, or to actively support and sympathise with mainstream Muslims means that some form of coercion or manipulation must have taken place. Offensive not only to the accused but Muslims too.
The word Dhimmi originates from the Arabic word dhimma, meaning contract or security. Ahl al-dhimmah is Arabic for ‘the people of the contract’, linguistically dhimmi means ‘one whose responsibility has been taken’. It refers to the status offered to non-Muslim subjects living in an Islamic state, and dates back to the time of Muhammad. A non-Muslim in the early years of Islam was required to pay a tax, the jizya. In return the Muslim state was obligated to protect dhimmis in civil and military matters. Dhimmis were exempt from military service, but if they chose to fight they would then not be required to pay jizya. The jizya was actually lower than the zakat tax which was used as a charity donation to the poor and needy, and only paid by Muslims.
In the grand scheme of things it’s hardly the worst insult in the world. The insinuations far more offensive to Muslims than the ‘dhimmis’. The implication that some form of pact or treaty should be required for non-Muslims to feel safe, and a suggestion that the West has been Islamised when Muslims quite clearly are an oppressed minority. It also allows the delusional bigots to justify their prejudice with their concience, if they actually have one.
Taqiyya is the top trump of get out clauses, and the last resort for Islamophobes in the face of overwhelming facts and evidence. Quite simply, Taqiyya is the Shi’a practice of concealing ones faith in the face of threat, persecution or compulsion. It merely gives the person the permission to deny their faith to avoid possible death without insulting Allah or Muhammad. Unsurprisingly, Islamophobes have distorted and exaggerated its meaning and usage. For example here’s Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch:
“When Shi’ite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: They could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis…Closely related to this is the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with an intention to mislead…Remember that the next time you see a Muslim spokesman on television professing his friendship with non-Muslim Americans and his loyalty to the United States. Of course, he may be telling the truth–but he may not be telling the whole truth or he may be just lying.”
The assertion is that Muslims are permitted, no, required to lie and deceive in order to further the cause of Islam. And as we all know, that cause is world domination.
“It has even been implied by some on the ultra-right that President Obama is “practicing taqiyya” when he “poses as a professed Christian.” Agnostics and secularists such as myself may thereby also, as both Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes have claimed about me, be accused of being secretly or objectively a “jihadist cadre.” Since this understanding of taqiyya began to develop in Islamophobic and “counterterrorism” circles post-9/11, it has increasingly served as little more than a code word for the idea that Muslims, and even anyone with any Muslim heritage, are all actual or potential liars.”
Rev. Frank Julian Gelli in an open letter to Geert Wilders:
“When a ‘Russia Today’-TV interviewer told you that an imam had just issued a fatwa condemning suicide bombing, you came up with a smart repartee: ‘Yes, but Muslims believe in taqiya.’ Therefore you cannot trust the good Imam is telling the truth.”
The gullible and devious alike will use these words whether they know the reality or not. It’s ultimately an admission that they have already lost the argument. It’s a tactic used to stop any rational debate dead in its tracks. How can you possibly convince someone who’s got the taqiyya conspiracy to fall back on? It can be used to reduce any acts of compassion or nobility, and any positive statements from Muslims to ‘Stealth Jihad’. It makes the spoof video below scarily accurate.
I have provided several links that debunk, rebut and counter the dhimmitude and taqiyya slurs below. If there is a way to silence or stifle the lies, it’s with truth and knowledge.
To get the lowdown on the truly bat-shit loon that coined the phrase dhimmitude Bat Ye’or check the link below.
Here’s an example of her lunacy: