We Still Need an Anti-Islamic Manual—More Than Ever

In a comment to an article on Jihad Watch, a suggestion popped up that sounds so breezy and casual, but which is, as we have argued here before, probably the most crucial thing that needs to be done in our disorganized War of Ideas against Islam Apologists:

Namely, to produce and publish a definitive yet concise Manual of common arguments by Islam Apologists, and refutations of them. Alas, we are still far from realizing such a Manual.

This is how the reader put it, commenting on the main thrust of the Jihad Watch article, a recent Q-&-A by obfuscating Islam Apologists experienced by John Lewis, an anti-Islamic speaker, at Georgia Tech University—an experience that Robert Spencer notes he has had himself numerous times:

Perhaps another thing to do to prepare for the Q-&-A after your speeches is to hand out a flyer with the 10-most-common "arguments" and their refutations listed on it. That way, when the first Islamo-apologist starts droning on, you can cut him off with "That's #4 on the list. Next question?" Just a thought. Efficiency, and all...

The above suggestion of “A_Nonny_Mouse” is within its own limitations excellent, even if its casually breeze tone screams for more urgency and specification. For there is no “perhaps” about this. And furthermore, this should not be some little helpful hint merely for the use of Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Mr. Lewis, and “others”.

A Manual of specific ways to refute Islam Apologists is, in fact, a gravely necessary rhetorical tool-kit for everyone—from the relatively influential analysts just mentioned on down to less world-travelled more ordinary folks—who find themselves, here and there, either off-the-cuff or more formally, discussing, persuading, and arguing about this most pressing problem and danger in which Western Civilization finds itself mired.

And lastly, the breezy suggestion of “A_Nonny_Mouse” is too casually slapdash: We do not need some kind of refrigerator note hung up as a second thought by a little magnet, to be used at the next PTA meeting if we can remember to squeeze it in between our dentist appointment and our Pilates class. No: what is needed is a more comprehensive and intensive approach.

There are indeed many circumstances and contexts in which such a Manual is indispensible: from the seemingly innocuous situation of talking to a friend or neighbor across the fence or in the laundry room (for those millions of us not blessed to have our own private washer & dryer); or talking to co-workers on breaks; or having discussions with classmates in college; to writing letters to editors of news publications or to political representatives; to blogging on the Internet; all the way up to participating in Q-&-A sessions at speeches or conferences; and, higher than that, actually debating Islam apologists in public forums, before live audiences or also on the radio or on television.

In all these circumstances, we need much more than the casually breezy “flyer” of the “ten most common arguments”, slapped together perhaps over a cup of tea in the mind of “A_Nonny_Mouse”. What he or she broached is, within its limits, excellent and essential: but it is only the barest of bones of a partial skeleton of the full body that is direly needed.

What we need is a comprehensive, yet concise, Manual of the following:

1) All the points asserted by Islam Apologists (whether they be Muslims themselves, or Politically Correct idiots whitewashing and defending Islam)

2) Refutations of all the points listed in #1

3) Counter-Refutations of any refutations put forth by Islam Apologists to the Refutations of #2 (whether the refutations of the Islam Apologists be actually specifically refuting the Refutations of #2, or whether they be hypothetically imagined by us).

Conclusion:

Influential people like Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Andrew Bostom, David Horowitz, John Lewis, Bill Warner, Ibn Warraq, and others, have no excuse not to have already begun this project. At worst, their obvious disinterest in such a project is inexcusable; at best, their lack of imagination in comprehending the need for a Manual betrays a pathetic poverty of the mind.

Postscript: What a Manual is not supposed to be:

1) The Manual should not be a dumping ground for poorly-organized excesses of information and analyses of the Problem of Islam: the Internet is already overflowing with too much of this.

2) And, closely related to #1, the Manual should not be a general primer on Everything You Need To Know About Islam:

a) The Manual should already assume basic knowledge of basic terms, such as “hadith” and “tafsir” and “Caliphate” and “Sharia” and “Sunni” and “Shia”; and so forth. More esoteric Islamic terms than such as the aforementioned may be explained in the Manual, but only with ruthlessly brief definitions. Internal links may be used to refer readers who need to know more. Otherwise, potential Manual users should expend the necessary effort to supplement their ignorance;

and

b) The Manual is not about Islam per se and thus not about its luxurious jungle of history and literature and sectarian associations: it should be only strictly about Points of Islamic Apology and their Refutations. Period.