First I will quote my correspondence with Blackmore. I sent this to him yesterday (May 18, 2012). He then posted it on his FFI thread:
"Hi Blackmore. Just giving you an update on REASON INFUSION.
The guy has no shame. He's creating loads of videos aimed at us, and is now "challenging" me. He says he's gonna refute my posts.
So if we recap;
1. He deletes the debate between you and him on Youtube when he notices he's been clearly defeated.
2. I host your debate on my blog and he makes loads of video calling me out by name.
3. I refute his silly videos in detail and expose him as an approver of slavery. When he notices this he deletes his videos whilst I'm still in the middle of replying to them.
4. I make it clear that it is now obviously over and I'm no longer going to bother with someone who refuses to link to his opponents arguments and deletes debates when he loses.
5. He creates several new videos on why he refuses to debate us (apparently because the elitist prick thinks we're not worthy because we're not "intellectuals")
6. He then does a U-turn and "challenges" me, accuses me of being a racist, liar, and a whole lot of other thing which he is actually guilty, and claims he will refute my posts.
7. His channel is now purged of videos which contain my name in their title and he refuses to even name who he is challenging in his new video.
This guy is very sneaky.
1. He expects me to waste more of my time by replying to him when twice before he has deleted debates which he has lost.
2. He also expects me to give him free traffic by discussing him and linking to his posts when his viewers don't even know the name of the critic he is responding to (he just calls me the "Bangladeshi").
Everything he's posted so far can be refuted, but I refuse to participate in a pointless debate that will eventually be deleted and give him more traffic in the process whilst giving me none.
I think neither of us should respond to any of his videos and give him what he wants. I'm simply going to add a note at the end of the existing article pointing out all these facts. I certainly think you should not make any further posts about this loser."
REASON INFUSION read that message on FFI, as today (May 19, 2012) he has a new video addressing me by name. I have taken the liberty of downloading it to my hard drive so can upload it when necessary (watch the original video here whilst you still can).
I know I said that this was the end of the "debate", but I will respond to every single word in this new video simply to demonstrate how pointless it is for me to further engage a disingenuous liar like REASON INFUSION in discussion. Blackmore has been kind enough to respond to the previous video aimed at me here, and some of his other videos here.
As I noted in my message yesterday, I will not be creating a new post dedicated to REASON INFUSION but will be keeping my response confined to this existing one. This is probably more than the bigoted and elitist pro-slaver deserves.
In his most recent videos, REASON INFUSION has become visibly more irritated and prone to childish behavior, and this video is no different. He begins by calling me an "Islamophobe", a controversial and disputed neologism ironically created/popularized by a bunch of homophobic Islamists from the Muslim-Brotherhood in order to "beat up their critics."
The stupidity of this neologism is easily exposed by the fact that devout and moderate Muslims espouse or agree with the very views that "Islamophobes" accuse Islam of being guilty of, but I think Sam Harris puts it best when he explains:
"Apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as “Islamophobia.” My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali is said to be suffering from it. Though she was circumcised as a girl by religious barbarians (as 98 percent of Somali girls still are) has been in constant flight from theocrats ever since, and must retain a bodyguard everywhere she goes, even her criticism of Islam is viewed as a form of “bigotry” and “racism” by many “moderate” Muslims. And yet, moderate Muslims should be the first to observe how obscene Muslim bullying is—and they should be the first to defend the right of public intellectuals, cartoonists, and novelists to criticize the faith.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe."
REASON INFUSION then goes on to accuse me of -wait for it- "riding his coattails". Here's the definition:
"Riding coattails is a metaphor that refers to the way in which lower level or uninspiring celebrities can often reach stardom through their ties to another, more popular and successful celebrity. This can often be used as a generic phrase for anyone that hangs onto another person as they forge ahead, without effort from the hanger-on."
Forgive me but this is one of those "LOL" moments. Is REASON INFUSION really that deluded? His illusions of grandeur are bordering on narcissistic. Blackmore and several other friends of mine on the FFI forum are well aware that I have been writing for years. My work has been quoted and featured all over the Internet (I'm sure he'll move on to accusing me of plagiarism, but quoting yourself does not make you guilty of this). My latest blog, on the other-hand, is a recent development, and even that has been featured on sites such as TROP. Conversely, his videos are lucky if they even receive 10 views. If anyone is riding another's "coattail", it is not I.
Here he proudly displays his bigoted and elitist attitude by condescendingly referring to me as "sir" (he also may not be aware that it can be construed as a racial slur, a stereotype of South Asians referring to whites as "sir", akin to the stereotype of African-Americans referring to whites as "boss"). He then proceeds to make up excuses for removing his videos. He says it's because he "condensed" the same material into other videos. As far as I'm aware, this is a lie.
I replied to the last half of his second video from memory and distinctly remember him bragging about how 55 per cent of converts in the UK were whites. I remember it because he seemed rather excited and overly emotional about it. Nowhere in his new videos does he mention this.
What is worst about this situation is REASON INFUSION's stubbornness and lack of integrity. He refuses to admit that he was clearly wrong in deleting a set of videos which he knew very well I was in the middle of replying to. There is no "if's" or "but's" about it. This is simply bad debating etiquette and should not be difficult for someone to admit to.
He continues to try and justify his lack of integrity through several means:
1. He mocks me for not "showing my face" and "hiding behind a blog". Blackmore dealt with this yesterday (yup, REASON INFUSION says the same thing in his previous video). His response touches on similar points raised by Sam Harris (quoted above) in regards to Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
"REASONINFUSION talks about a particular man from Bangladesh who hides behind a typewriter and doesn’t show his face. It’s IslamoCritic he is talking about. Well REASONINFUSION, not every Muslim knows that Islam is a religion of peace. There many among them that murder for their religion. A Islam critic’s life is not save. Basically all Islam critics have protection. Geert Wilders here in Holland has 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year, protection. And his only ‘crime’ is repeating what the so called Muslim fundamentalists or extremists are saying about Islam. And somehow these guys are save and don’t need protection. It’s a crazy world isn’t it?"
Let's not beat around the bush. Safety is a very real concern for critics of Islam, especially those who had formally belonged to it. I've been threatened several times. For example, once I was told I was a "homosexual Christian dog(?)" who needed to be put down. Of course not all correspondence has been like that. I was once contacted by a sweet Bangladeshi girl who told me she was "ashamed" that a fellow Bangladeshi could leave Islam. Granted, it's not exactly perfect, but at least it was not threatening.
REASON INFUSION's mockery only exposes how twisted and evil some "moderate" Muslims really are. They hide safely behind their Islamist co-religionists whilst we have no such luxury. And REASON INFUSION is proud of this? In fact I discussed this very issue in a previous post of mine totally unrelated with the current discussion (March 21, 2012):
"As critics such as Ali Sina have pointed out, this is due to their intellectual bankruptcy. The only recourse they have available is to emulate their prophet through intimidation, humiliation and killing. Up until the age of the Internet, it was very nearly impossible to criticize Islam without literally losing your head over it. Now that we have the Internet, it really is the last semi-safe place to criticize Islam and how it effects the behavior and attitudes of its followers. This fact tends to infuriate Muslims, who will often "challenge" the critics to show their faces, unaware that their words only confirm the barbaric stereotype earned by their faith.
I say “semi-safe” because there still are dangers to voicing criticism of Islam on the Internet, even with the relative anonymity it provides. Muslim reactions to criticism go further than simply trying to hack a site to shut it down. Many issue death threats and attempt to track down the people behind these sites in the real world. The reason behind this is not to shake their hands and have a nice discussion over a hot cup of cocoa. No, the reason is to teach them a lesson, even to kill them. For example, Hossam Armanious and his innocent family (originally from an article by the New York Sun)"
2. He also attempts to mock me for apparently taking "months" to post responses because I'm busy "gathering" biased sources from the net. Both of his claims are false.
A. The claim that I take "months" to reply is a provable and hypocritical lie. What, does he really think I'm waiting with bated breath behind my computer screen in anticipation of his replies to me? I reply to his silly videos as soon as I view them, which means there can be a delay because I may be unaware that he has even created a video aimed at me. With his last batch of videos (three in one go), the slight delay was from the fact that I'm busy. You can't just dump three videos on someone and expect them to write three separate replies in one day.
The original debate between Blackmore and the overtly racist REASON INFUSION was posted at my blog on April 11, 2012. I replied to his first video aimed at me on April 20, 2012, the very day I was made aware of it. Since he's deleted that video, I'm not sure of when it was created, but it was only a week and 3 days at the most before I noticed and replied. I then replied to the first of 3 new videos aimed at me on May 2, 2012, also the very day I was made aware of it (to be honest, I was not expecting him to be shameless enough to come back for more). Again, since he's deleted that video, I'm not sure of when it was created, but it was only a week and 2 days at the most before I noticed and replied. I replied to the second over 3 posts dated May 4, May 6, and May 10, 2012. Additionally, although this post is only an "update", it is as lengthy and thorough as any of my previous replies. This video I am replying to was only uploaded by REASON INFUSION today, and I am replying to it -you guessed it- on the very same day.
The time between posting REASON INFUSION's deleted debate with Blackmore and REASON INFUSION's mass deletions is less than a month in total, and most of my replies were posted the very day I viewed the corresponding video. So where has this fantasy of me taking "months" to reply to one of his videos come from? Moreover, since when has anyone set a time limit between responses? I can assure you, unlike REASON INFUSION, if I agree to a set of terms, I will do my damned best to stick by them.
Where is the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier? Well, this lay in the fact that I responded to the first of his second set of videos on May 2, 2012, yet he only responded to it today on May 19, 2012. That's 2 weeks and 3 days for an actual direct response to anything I have written. And yes, that's longer than any length of time between his videos and my responses to them. There is a reason why I give them the title, "Hypocrite Extraordinaire", and this perfectly demonstrates it.
B. The claim that I was busy "gathering" biased sources from the net is incorrect. When it comes to most of the statistics I provided, I collected them long before I ever set eyes on one of REASON INFUSION's repetitive and obscure videos. If there is anything that may delay responses from me is the fact that I'm very particular about my grammar and spelling. My English is hardly MENSA quality, but why bother writing if you don't give it your best?
As to the overall quality of the countless links I provide for all my statements, they each have to be assessed separately (certainly out of the scope of this reply). But what I can say is,
Firstly, a lot of the links I provide are sourced directly from the Compendium of Muslim Texts and other source material that I own. If he has a problem with these, then it is orthodox mainstream Islam he really has a problem with, not me.
Secondly, there is not only one available reference for each statement I make. If I were to continue this discussion, I'm sure I could find suitable alternatives to anything REASON INFUSION objects to.
His complaint only further exposes his hypocrisy. In the video before this one, he attempts to prove Islam planned on eliminating slavery. In order to do this he quotes from a book called "Humanism in Islam" written by a Western dhimmi named Marcel André Boisard. He provides no quotes from Islamic sources, just the words of an intellectual dhimmi.
In two of my previous replies, I explain, using canonical Islamic sources, Muhammad's participation and the theology behind slavery, and the reason why Muhammad never intended to put an end to this abhorrent trade. Sure, some of the later commentators, holding evolved and superior morals to that of Muhammad's, may have claimed this, but there is no canonical texts that even come close to supporting such an assertion.
So when have the writings of a non-Muslim Western dhimmi become more authoritative than the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and all the other Islamic texts?
Seriously, you're addressing an adult Bangladeshi ex-Muslim, not some white teenaged college student rebelling against his parents because a nun once smacked his ass at Sunday school. What next, are you going to start quoting Karen Armstrong? Please don't. I would feel embarrassed for you.
Talk about creating strawmen. REASON INFUSION now claims I took "offense" at his comparison of the "Jim Crow laws to the Apartheid in South Africa".
No, I certainly did not take "offense" to the comparison. If you take a look at the particular response he is referring to, you can clearly see I was simply referring to the irony in a Muslim who continually condemns all of these inhumane forms of Western oppression in a debate not related to the West, yet hypocritically fails to condemn or even mention the Islamic equivalent, Dhimmitude, in a debate specifically about Islam.
Yup, this is the individual who claims we're the "hypocrites" who are “slick in our condemnation”, yet he is the only one who refuses to out-right condemn slavery and those who partook in this trade. And whilst we're at it, let's clear up this lie REASON INFUSION insistently repeats over and over again about how we do not want to offend our Christian American fundie "allies". I think I probably lost their support in my first reply to him where I say to f**k (slaving) Americans, Christians and their slaving and raping founding fathers.
In this section, he then goes on to once again repeat statistics on human trafficking, etc. in the Netherlands. All of this has been dealt with in one of my previous responses that can be read here.
Here he shows how the Jim Crow laws are often compared by scholars to the Apartheid practiced in South Africa. Again, this is a strawman. I have never denied such a comparison. In my opinion, it is a very good comparison and both are worthy of condemnation. I was only commenting on the irony in a Muslim who condemns all of these forms of Western oppression, yet fails to condemn or even mention the Islamic equivalent.
He then goes on to point out how Adolf Hitler praised the United states. Again, I have never denied that he did. The fact that Hitler would praise America is only further proof that America has a history that it should be rightfully ashamed of. But it is funny how REASON INFUSION uses this as proof of how evil America was, but then fails to apply the same sort of reasoning to Islam. In Hitler's own words:
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" - Hitler: Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115
In this section the elitist snob again tells us how educated he is and then says he "assumes" I think he would not be aware of what a tu quoque is. This is ridiculous. He previously attempted to accuse me of it, and I called him out for the lying hypocrite that he is. So why on earth would he assume I thought he was unaware of what it meant? It's all too obvious that he knows what it is, but he is simply too incompetent to use this logical fallacy effectively. For example here:
"REASONINFUSION asks, why didn't I tell my readers the "Dutch were the first people to import black slaves to the new-world"?
This is a ridiculous question that hardly deserves a response, but for the sake of avoiding any misunderstandings, I will answer. I was clearly not writing an in-depth essay, or even a vague summary, of the history of slavery. I was simply introducing a debate between REASONINFUSION and Blackmore discussing slavery in Islam, whilst also pointing out the use of fabricated nonsense by REASONINFUSION. My introduction was a measly 6 sentences in length. How and why would anyone expect me to cover such a thing in such a short space? There is an appropriate time and place for everything, but discussing the Dutch in an introduction to a debate on slavery in Islam is not it.
A more salient question would be, why didn't REASONINFUSION tell his readers about the Dutch slave trade? Even after Blackmore told him he was a Dutch, REASONINFUSION continued in his use of tu quoque against America. So basically what this boils down to is the fact that REASONINFUSION is mad at me for his own incompetence. The guy can't even use logical fallacies effectively."
What he has the audacity to claim in this section probably explains why he was in a hurry to delete all the videos I responded to. He again claims it is me, not him, using the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.
This accusation is crazy. As I've stated many times, the subject of this debate was and always will be SLAVERY IN ISLAM. The definition of this fallacy is when "one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser." So when REASON INFUSION brings up unrelated statistics on Bangladeshi child abuse in a debate about SLAVERY IN ISLAM, who is committing the logical fallacy?
Seriously, is this an adult I'm responding to? Why does he fail to comprehend the obvious fact that it is he and only he who is guilty of this fallacy that he continually accuses others of?
As proof, you only need to read the original debate between Blackmore and REASON INFUSION (which proves the subject of debate was slavery in Islam), and then portions of my responses to his insistent use of it.
For example; the previous quote above, and then here:
"REASON INFUSION finishes off his video by attempting to lecture me on the tu quoque logical fallacy. He states,
"'They did it too' is not a defense. To justify the European slave trade on the basis that the Arab slave trade come before. It's poor logic and it is irrational ....."
This is hilarious when we consider the fact that the subject in question has always been slavery in Islam, therefore it is REASON INFUSION who is employing the use of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy by constantly changing the subject and bringing the founding fathers of America, European slavery, the Jim Crow laws, Christianity, the Dutch, Bangladeshis, bride-burning, child labor, child abuse, and even our own fathers, mothers and sisters into the equation, all simply to justify and defend Islam, its racist slaving white founder, and the resulting Islamic slave trade."
"As I predicted but did not seriously expect in my previous response, now that REASON INFUSION is aware that I am not white, and now that he is unable to use his stock tu quoque arguments against me, he has moved onto my South Asian/Bangladeshi ethnicity/nationality. He proceeds to roll out statistics on child abuse etc. in my overwhelming Muslim country of Bangladesh,"
"REASON INFUSION then moves onto using the tu quoque ("you too") logical fallacy against my nationality/ethnicity (a fallacy which he, in the first video, hilariously attempted to lecture me on, when it was him and only him who has ever employed it in this discussion). He once again quotes statistics on child abuse and other forms of oppression in Bangladesh in an attempt to stifle discussion on Islam by trying to undermine the credibility of its critics and shift the focus away from Islam. Rather than repeat myself, I will simply quote my previous reply to this patent nonsense"
"REASON INFUSION loves to open his fallacious arguments with "they conveniently overlook the fact...", and this argument is no exception. So why hasn't he condemned any of this? And before he again accuses us of employing the tu quoque fallacy, I would like to point out that it is him and only him who is using it. Blackmore and I are simply responding to his tu quoque and exposing their stupidity."
REASON INFUSION opens this section with a comment, spoken with venom, that leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that his racism and bigotry extends further than simply to whites, when he states:
"I think what you should also look up is 'credibility' sir. I don't know if you have it in Bangladesh, but in the United States we have something called 'credibility'"
Then he goes on to accuse me of using tu quoque whenever he brings up Bangladeshi child abuse statistics (something which I address in this post and partially in this post). As I have already made clear, it is he who is using tu quoque whenever he attempts to shift focus away from slavery in Islam. Blackmore and I are simply exposes the stupidly in his choice of subjects that always backfire on him because most of the problems he highlights are caused or justified by followers of Islam and Islamic teachings.
He then says I spend only one sentence to actually discuss the child abuse taking place in Bangladesh. Well, considering the fact that I was responding to a lousy tu quoque that has nothing to do with slavery in Islam, I would say this was generous of me. As I said before, there is a time and place for everything, but discussing child abuse in a discussion on slavery in Islam is not it.
REASON INFUSION says he will be back, and I'm sure he will. As for me, I'm done with debating a racist imbecile.