Wednesday, 9 May 2012

WikiIslam has Been Refuted!!! Muslim Apologists and their Retarded "Responses" and "Refutations"

Many years ago I observed a consistent pattern in Muslim debating techniques. You can tear their false claims to shreds all you like, but they will always return, only to reply again with the same claim reworded slightly (and possibly with added bravado or "LOL" smilies), or even return with something completely unrelated to the topic.

You can see this happening here in a forum discussion concerning Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Controversy in the Qur'an, between the author, several others, and a Qur'an-only "Muslim" (who ironically are almost always more hateful, antisemitic, anti-Christian and anti-Western than their hadith-totting Sunni and Shi'ite equivalents).

If my memory serves me correctly, the author eventually says he will no longer respond to the "Muslims" posts unless he brings up something new which has not already been addressed and refuted by him in his original post. The "Muslim" then claims victory and goes on to challenge others to "debate" him on the issue.

His false show of confidence (or maybe it's not false, maybe he really does think his replies are great) gives a casual reader the impression that he is right and his opponents are wrong. So, according to his, and many other Muslim apologists logic, the person who expresses the most bravado and has the last word is the victor.

Why am I discussing this here? Well, it's because the same is true for many of the Muslim "responses" and "refutations" to critics of Islam.

For example, one site has an article titled, "Refuting Prophet Muhammad said beat children who do not pray". When I viewed the title of this page, I instantly knew that it was not going to be "refuting" anything because the hadith literature clearly tell us Muhammad commanded the beating of children who do not pray.

And I was right. It simply quotes a fatwa by a respected Islamic scholar (a scholar which sites like WikiIslam also use as a source) who confirms what the critics claim, whilst also adding that:

...the educator must be merciful, forbearing, easy-going and approachable, not foul-mouthed or unkempt, arguing in a manner that is better, far removed from insulting, rebuking and beating, unless the child is one of those who willfully disobey and rejects his father’s commands and neglects his duties and does haraam things; in that case it is better to use stern measures with him, without causing him harm.

So how does this article "refute" the claim "Prophet Muhammad said beat children who do not pray"? It doesn't, and in fact supports the claim of the critics.

The same thing is done in another of their articles titled, "Refuting Muhammad said sick men heal by drinking camel urine". Rather than refute anything, it actually confirms what the critics are saying by actually trying, and failing, to prove that camel urine is a "scientific miracle".

So why the inaccurate titles? Again it's both a false show of bravado and the belief that he who has the last word is the victor. Links to these articles are then posted on forums in response to articles by critics, usually with accompanying smilies declaring victory and the text "Already refuted". This is usually enough to kill the thread, but if those who had initially posted the articles by critics spent some time in actually reading the links posted by Muslims, then they would clearly see that this is not the case.