Deception of Non-Muslims

Muslim spokesmen employ a peculiar style of deceptive propaganda that so far has caught western media off-guard. It takes advanatage of a common assumption among those who have only been exposed to other religions – the assumption that the statements of religious leaders can be taken at face value because religious leaders want people to understand their religion. It takes advantage of western ignorance of Islam while at the same time seeking to maintain that ignorance. It takes advanatage of people's tendency to see Islam as a religion in the traditional sense, rather than as a combination of a militant political ideology and a religion. Thus a Muslim religious leader should not be seen in the same way as most religious leaders. He should be viewed as a combination of politician and religious leader. When addressing a western, non-Muslim audience, he should not be viewed as a typical missionary, but as an astute politician addressing a hostile audience who won't like all of his policies - he will tell you what you want to hear. Viewing them as a politician can be a difficult task as they often combine this with a hypersensitivity to criticism or direct questioning that a politician could not get away with. 'How dare you accuse me of lying' is a powerful challenge coming from a cleric with his 'religious leader' hat on, but would be ridiculed if it came from a politician.

Muslims use a number of strategies to either conceal the more barabaric aspects of their religion or to decieve people about Islamic doctrine. The initial deception is semantic. Literally, they say one thing and mean another, the opposite of calling a spade a spade. This typically involves using a dual meaning that is generally only understood by Muslims, or using Arabic terms. The initial deception is followed up with a number of rhetorical techniques that create a barrier to effective communication. These are essentially a form of diversion. While some of these tricks are familiar to a western audience, some are largely unfamiliar and play on Islamic concepts with which the west is unfamiliar.

Muslims will discuss with each other deliberate attempts to strategically generate propaganda for the political aspects of Islam. This looks far more like the actions of a political party intent on winning at all costs rather than a religion trying to promote the truth. [1]

Some common strategies

Exploiting positive assumptions

One of the most irony-laden discussions with Muslims revolved around the concept of Taqiyya. This rule permits Muslims to deceive people, break the law or commit blasphemy under certain circumstances. When asked whether this gives Muslims free reign to lie to non-Muslims, several Muslims pointed out that it only applies in certain circumstances, such as war. This was an indirect response that relied heavily on the assumption that we are not at war. One of those Muslims later explained that he believed that the West had been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920’s and that the west had declared and carried out this war. This is a good example of a very subtle deception taking advantage of positive assumptions, in the context of discussing deception itself. This strategy works well when combined with hypersensitivity to discourage people from seeking a more direct response when only an indirect response was given. [2]

Islamic law follows belief

Islam requires the imposition of Shariah law on both Muslims and non-Muslims. Having the law imposed on you is considered necessary and an integral part of Islam. Islam also requires Muslims to follow Islamic law in foreign countries. The process for turning a foreign country into an Islamic one has always been through a process of empire building, often through outright violence, but always with the threat of violence. [3] Muslims see no contradiction between this and the 'peaceful empire' fairytale. [4][5] Muslims will go so far as to insist they are not allowed to lobby for Islamic law and that it merely 'follows naturally' after everyone has converted to Islam, even though this never happened historically. [6][7]

Revising history: science and the 'peaceful' empire fairytale

Revising history appears to be a favourite pastime of Muslims. This usually involves going to absurd lengths to overstate the contributions made by Muslims (especially to science) and undervalue the contribution of non-Muslims, or to pass blame for every historical evil by Muhammed and his successors to the non-Muslim victims. This can in part be attributed to the obligation of Muslims to look more favourably on fellow Muslims than non-Muslims (see for example Justice and Honesty). Apparently Muslims made vast contributions to science. For example, the bloke who jumped off a tower with feathers glued to his arms, making a nasty stain on the pavement below, made a valuable contribution to our understanding of flight. [8] One of the most outrageous claims is that the Caliphate (Islamic empire) was peaceful and spread only through self defence. Muslims actually expect people to take this absurd version of history seriously. [9] A favourite justification for this claim is that Christians welcomed Muslims into Spain with open arms, in order to get lower taxes. What really happened is that the Muslim hordes allied themselves with one Spanish kingdom so they could cross a massive natural protective barrier (the Mediterranean) and slaughter another Spanish kingdom. Then they turned their swords on their allies and slaughtered them too. Then they slaughtered their way across the whole peninsula. Then they started sending raids into modern day France. Eventually the French and Italians booted them out of Europe.

Statistics

Muslims often attempt to misrepresent the threat posed by Islamic terrorism with statistics that equate attacks such as 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid and Bali with vandalism attacks by other extremist political groups. They do this by measuring the 'rate' of terrorism by the number of individual events, rather than a more appropriate measure of risk, such as death toll. [10] [11] [12] Muslims will also often misrepresent crime statistics, for example by attributing differences in reported rates of crime with actual rates of crime, when there is an obvious difference in reporting patterns. [13] This is most pronounced with crimes such as rape, which are obviously less likely to be reported in middle eastern countries, where the rape victim often ends up being punished. Muslims will often claim that certain crimes were almost non-existent in the historical Caliphate (common examples are homosexuality, murder, rape, apostasy etc). They will use their inability to find evidence of succesfull convictions as evidence that the convictions and punishments were rare, particulalrly when insisting that the punishment of death by stoning would only be implemented rarely (the classic logical fallacy of equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence). They will then turn this reasoning on it's head and demand that people who disagree with them produce crime statistics from 1000 years ago. On another tangent, apparently a Muslim country will not 'run out of women' until all men have four wives. If not all men can afford four wives, it will not be a problem. [14] (see also Rape.)

Deflections

Simple diversion

The first trick usually employed on forums is a simple diversion. If you ask 'do Muslims think it is OK to do this?', they will respond by listing examples of where something similar (no matter how remote the similarity) has been done to Muslims. This shifts the debate away from Islamic doctrine and how it seems immoral to most westerners, to a blame game over who is responsible for past attrocities. Thus Islamic doctrine is not exposed and the debate switches to from moral standards to politics or history. [15]

The most obvious example of this is terrorism. Most Muslims will say that terrorism is wrong, but they then go on to list all the grievances of the middle east. They may also deny that Muslims bear any responsibility for reigning in Islamic terrorists. Many claim that the reigning in of terrorists should not be a first step in the peace process, but rather a last step. [16] That is, we must first satisfy all the grievances of the terrorists and give Muslim extremists whatever they want (mostly more political power and geopolitical restructuring of the middle east), and only after that can they be exp[ected to stop slaughtering people. However that is where the explanation stops. Muslims will not explain why they think this. Instead they will bring up some media report of an accidental civilian death attributable to a western army. I suspect that Muslims think this way because they see all non-Muslim lands as being a place of war. One hint of this is that they will refuse to distinguish the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist organisations for which no person or nation can be held accountable, and the accidental death of civilians in an armed conflict with a guerrilla army that hides among civilians. Thus, destroying the twin towers is an act of war in a place of war and is no different to the death of civlians in a 'real' war zone. However, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a Muslim to either admit to this or to offer some other explanation for why terrorist organisations should be given free reign until their various (largely unspecified) demands have been met.

Et tu

'Et tu' is a reference to a logical fallacy. It refers to the debating strategy of accusing your opponent of something that you yourself have been accused of (or something worse). It is a logical error in the sense that it is used to justify your own actions. In the case of Islam, this tactic is used in an astonishingly predictable manner every time historical injustices committed by Muslims are brought up. The response is to ignore the injustice and how it may relate to Islam (or not) and instead give examples where non-Muslims have done similar things. There does not have to be any causative relationship. For example Muslims have attempted to justify mass murder by Muhammed himself by citing an example of non-Muslims doing something worse in the same town 600 years later (see Collective Punishment and Genocide). This of course helps to completely avoid the issue of whether such behaviour should be incorporated into timeless religious law, or whether it is even endorsed by ISlam.

Already answered

The next trick is usually to claim that the question has already been answered. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] This is usually combined with the implication that you are stupid for having to ask for clarificiation. This trick is basically a throwback to the deceptive use of dual meanings and unfamiliar terminology, except that it avoids the need to explain it again and risk giving away too much information. This trick is usually first used when you start asking more specific questions that are getting closer to exposing the particular deception.

Hypersensitivity

The next trick is usually employed if you try to justify a request for clarification after Muslims insist that questions have already been answered or that you have no reason to be interested anyway. The Muslim will become hypersensitive at the suggestion that you do not trust them to give you a straight answer. Alternatively, they will accuse you of asking 'loaded' questions, as if there is something wrong with discovering the truth about Islam. Curiously, the more specific and direct the question is, the greater the tendency to claim it is loaded, even if it carries no assumptions at all, or only assumes what has just been verified. That is, a question is loaded if it is a simple, direct question about Islam. [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

Dummy spit

If all else fails, spit the dummy. Make more accusations of ulterior motives, stirring up trouble, asking loaded questions etc. Then, simply refuse to answer. [38] After one such dummy spit I started a new topic specifically about concubines and after more criticism of my questioning style, I got a limited affirmative response, but no more questions about concubines and their treatment have been answered. [39][40] Yet I have been told in great detail how badly the west treats women.

Accusations of Insincerity

Muslims will use an accusation of insincerity as a justification for refusal to answer simple questions about Islam. [41] [42] [43]

Answering a question with a question

For example, demanding to know how elections are run before saying whether Islam supports democracy [44], demanding to know what the law is before saying whether Islam supports justice, demanding to know what the truth is before giving an honest answer.

Silence

Silence as a tactic is reserved for the more disturbing aspects of Islam. While it was employed to a limited extent on the issue of sex slaves, it was employed far more diligently for the issue of the treatment of Hindus, atheists, pagans etc. Muslims will go to great lengths to put a positive spin on Dhimmitude – the institutionalised humiliation of Christians and Jews. However if you ask them about the treatment of those who are not ‘people of the book’ they will likely pretend you don’t exist. The issue of sex slaves was generally avoided, partly by accident. However, numerous questions were asked over a long period of time about the treat of non-Dhimmi non-Muslims. Even when I started a new thread asking specifically about the treatment of these people, it was ignored. [45] I started raising the issue in a few other related threads and posting links. It was still ignored. Only after I posted evidence that Islam promotes wholesale slaughter of these people, and others began complaining that they can’t get a straight answer either, was a response posted by resident Muslims. Of course, these responses did not answer the question about Islamic doctrine regarding the treatment of these people. For the most part, the actual question was ignored, as best it could be. When it was approached, the reverse “Islam does not exist” argument was the most common tactic (after the obvious deflections to the ‘evil west’). Where Muslims will usually respond that the various unfortunate situations across the middle east have nothing to do with Islam, in this case the argument was that the situation in the middle east is the only valid indicator of what Islamic doctrine is. Thus the mere presence of these other religions in the middle east is now ‘proof’ of the positive approach to them in Islamic doctrine.

Outcomes vs ideology

Muslims will argue that an outcome strongly linked to Islam (eg Afghans stoning people to death without the appropriate paperwork) has nothing to do with Islam because it did not occur under official Shariah law. They will also argue the opposite [46] - that for example the failure of Muslims to wipe out Hindus in India (despite conceding that they tried) is evidence that Islam does not support this. [47] This is a strategy of 'shifting the goal posts'. If you ask a Muslim about Islamic doctrine, they will tell you about an outcome that makes Islam appear more benign to you (usually a long way from the Arabian peninsula where Islam only reached in later centuries). If you ask them about the actions of Muslims that are apparently identical to the actions decreed by Muhammed, they will complain about how it differs from doctrine - for modern examples the most convenient is the 'Islam does not exist' argument. Another example of shifting the goal to 'outcomes' is this claim that Islamic lands have more religious diversity. [48] This is from the same Muslim that conceded that Islam was successful in wiping out every single non-Muslim in the Arabian peninsula (see Collective Punishment and Genocide). The relative diversity further from the heart of Islam can be attributed to two fairly obvious reasons: the relative youth of the religion, and the agressive empire building that was characteristic of it's spread - Islam would first conquer a land in a military sense, then set about making the people convert to Islam using whatever means worked best. This of course worked to avoid the actual question, which was specifically about doctrine, not outcomes. In the same thread, this argument claims that remaining a Muslim is evidence that Islam is not brutal [49] rather than the more obvious reason that apostasy attracts the death penalty.

Changing the question

If you ask a Muslim a question about Islam, he may go to some lengths to 're-interpret' the question so it is no longer about Islam in order to avoid discussing Islam. This example is from an eight page thread about the penalty for blasphemy where several Muslims attempt to change the topic to anything except the punishment for blasphemy: [50]. This strategy is also often used in response to questions about whether Muslims want Shariah law implemented in the west and how they ought to go about achieving this. [51]

Prove the existence of a question

Muslims will often demand proof of something before answering a simple question. This can be taken to absurd lengths, for example effectively demanding proof that a question exists. The demands are often for evidence of historical events, where the evidence is highly unlikely to exist. This is often in the context of Muslims claiming for example that the lack of surviving documentation of people being stoned to death for homosexuality is evidence that this did not occur, and even that homosexuality did not exist and that Shariah law is a 'cure' for it. It is similar to the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, except that it is often in the form of a demand for evidence as a way of avoiding directly addressing a topic or question. [52] [53]

Lobbying

A typical response to what societal changes Muslims should lobby for is that it is pointless to lobby for an activity to be punished if it is still encouraged by society (never mind that making an activity illegal, and lobbying for this discourages it), and to equate the question with an accusation of being a fanatic. Another common angle is that Islam is an 'all or nothing' system, which means Muslims cannot lobby for any specific change as it is invalid in isolation (you will not get a straight answer on how to impliment everything all at once either). [54]

Semantic deceptions

Many deceptions rely on manipulating the meaning of words. Some examples:

Dual meaning

A common tactic is to attach a dual meaning to common english words such as war, peace, slave, innocent, rape, domestic violence etc. This tactic is so successful because it is so different from the typical 'western propaganda' approach of inventing new jargon. For example, where a deceptive western leader may talk about 'colateral damage' to make civilian deaths in war sound more benign, a decpetive Muslim leader may say 'no one was murdered', on the grounds that the killing was legal. In this case, the deception is obvious because most english speaking people understand the subtle difference between muder and kill. However, by carefully controlling how Islamic doctrine is translated into english, muslim scholars have created a situation where many common words have an entriely different meaning when used in the context of Muslims or Islamic law. This is combined with an insistance that to 'truly understand' the Koran one must study it in Arabic [55], thus putting the context or meaning of the words used beyond the reach of most non-Muslims. Thus, Muslims will understand what their leaders are saying, even if most westerners do not. This can be quite blatant manipulation, such as when some UK clerics stated in public that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then said to their followers in private that only Muslims can be considered innocent. [56][57][58][59][60]

Being so simple, this tactic is most often employed in press releases. As an example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens appeared to support the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie during question time after giving a lecture at a western university. The next day he released a statement to the press reassuring the public that he does not support vigilantism. [61] Of course, he was not available to give any further details. Most assumed he did not want Rushdie dead. However, closer inspection appears to show that Cat Stevens did not actually oppose the death penalty for Salman Rushdie. He did think it would be wrong to shoot Salman in the back of the head in some dark alley. Rather, Salman should have been hauled before the relevant cleric, who had already found him guilty, so that he could be stoned to death in an orderly, 'civilised' manner.

Another common example is the claim that Islam is peace, or is peaceful. The utlimate objective of Islam is indeed a peaceful existence, however this peace is achieved by Islam conquering the world. [62] Until that time, all non-Muslim areas are considered to be at war. Those areas that are ruled by Islam are by definition at peace, even if Shiits and Sunnis are blowing up each other's Mosques. Thus, 'Islam is peace' is a technically correct statement about the 'final solution' of Islam and about those lands that are ruled by Islam, but is totally deceptive to those who do not already know what it means.

Muslim leaders will claim in public that Australia shares a lot of values in common with Islam, or that Australia is a Muslim nation, or that Australians already practice Muslim values. In private, they will call for the destruction of western decadence. [63][64] They will express outrage at new citizens being expected to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis of Australia's values system. They will claim that Muslims strive to obey local laws, but will also call on other Muslims to reject anything other than Sharia law as heresey. They will claim friendship with non-Muslims, but privately preach that friendship with non-Muslims is wrong and should lead to ostracism. They will claim that Islam is peace, but privately preach that there can be no peace until the entire world has been subjugated to Islamic law. [65] They will make friends with Christians, then preach in private that Christianity is vile. There are even passages in the Koran that promote the use of terror. [66] By redefining equality, Muslims will claim that Islam creates equality between the sexes, even though it gives men authority over women and allows them to be beaten until they are 'green'. [67] [68]

Rather than making a plain English translation available to the general public along with explanations, the Koran is made impenetrable by mixing up the verses so that they are out of order and the context is lacking.

Arabic terms

Rather than inventing new jargon, Muslims insert Arabic terms into english. These terms have a complex meaning that is relatively well understood to most Muslims, but is totally unknown to the target audience. A Muslim spokesperson can thus make a statement that appears to be a universal principle, but which muslims understand only applies to certain situations.

Taqiyya, ironically enough, refers to deception. A muslim may say for example that Taqiyya forbids lying, which is technically true, depending of course on the context. However it does not appear to forbid deception. Furthermore lying is only allowed in certain situations, such as war. But remember the dual meaning – any non-Muslim land is a place of war. Using the word Taqiyya in public carries all of these complex and contradictory connotations, which are known to Muslims. Thus Muslims are not lied to even when non-Muslims get the wrong idea.

These two tactics are usually sufficient to dupe most disinterested audiences. They work well in press releases where further explanation is not available, as the media has no choice but to pass them on as-is, leaving the public unaware that the true meaning is totally different from the face value. However several more interesting techniques are used in online forums where dialogue is inevitable. Even though this medium encourages direct questions and the resolution of ambiguities, it can still be remarkably difficult to get the real story from a Muslim. Muslims achieve this by creating as many barriers to effective communication as possible. Again, this relies on the underlying assumption that a Muslim would want you to know what Islam is really about. However, in reality a Muslim is more than happy to wait until some time in the future when your country has been conquered by Muslims before you find out how nasty it can be. All of these strategies have been observed on the OzPolitic forum.

Semantics

If both of these tricks fail, the next option is another diversion. This time instead of diverting to politics or history, the Muslim diverts to semantic issues. This takes advantage of the control that Muslim scholars have over translation of the Koran. It works in a similar manner to criticising someone's spelling in the middle of a heated debate – except of course that it is part of a broader strategy. First, they simply point out that you used an incorrect term. The correct term is not suggested and the actual question is ignored. [69] If you ask for the correct term they may suggest you ask someone else. [70][71] They cannot possibly 'just answer it anyway' and explain what the issue is.

Clerics don't exist

One favourite term for this diversion tactic is cleric, which is used in the media to refer to Muslim religious leaders. If you ask why a cleric said something, or why a person is still a cleric after doing or saying something objectionable, they will simply respond that there is no such thing as a cleric. [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] Technically this can be true, but only if you assume that cleric means clergy, rather than the currently accepted additional meaning of Muslim religious leader (as is used by the media). The absence of an 'official' clergy has another advantage for Muslim propagandists, in that it allows total diffusion of responsibility. There is no leader or institution to be held accountable, therefor Islam is not to blame. More specifically, a Muslim leader who does or promotes evil acts can be simply dismissed on the grounds that they are not a 'genuine' Islamic leader, while at the same time denying any responsibility among the broader Muslim community for actually preventing it or disowning the leader. Despite direct requests, I have still not been able to get a straight answer on how a non-Muslim should go about verifying what is a 'genuine' Islamic law (other than not asking direct questions in the first place. [83]). Muslims will even claim that there is no such thing as a Muslim leader in the absence of a perfect Islamic state. [84]

Sex slavery

On another issue, I had been asking a group of Muslims for some months about two issues – slavery [85] and sex (eg Polygamy, women in Islam, Sufism, sodomy and Satan). I had been lead to believe that sex outside of marriage is punishable by death, and that Muslims are only allowed four wives. This had covered just about every concievable 'crime', including prostitution, extramarital affairs [86], homosexuality [87], bestiality [88], pedophilia, masturbation [89] etc. Naturally it eventually came up in one of the slavery topics, as a simple question about sex slaves, which had been mentioned in a media article. The usual tricks were employed – diversion to examples of sex slavery in non-Muslim countries, insisting all my questions had already been answered, accusations of ulterior motives and 'loaded questions'. When I still kept asking, I was told that sex slave is the wrong term, so there are no sex slaves. Eventually I figured out what the correct term is – concubines. By this stage it was fairly obvious that Islam does permit concubines, but I had no idea under what circumstances.

Rape

According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape. [90] Consider also this classic quote from a Muslim on the forum about domestic violence: "Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control" [91] How they actually define rape and domestic violence is deliberately kept vague, but there is usually a strong implication that an act is only rape or domestic violence if it goes far beyond what Islam permits. Rape and domestic violence are redefined as acts that are forbidden in Islam, allowing Muslims to proclaim that Islam forbids them, thereby giving non-Muslims the false impression that Islam is benign. Furthermore, these 'transgressions' are carefully linked to problems considered to be 'western', effectively blaming rape and domestic violence on rights and freedoms that the west permits but Islam forbids, while at the same time permitting it under 'appropriate' circumstances.

Apostasy vs Treason

Under Islam the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning. Muslims often attempt to disguise this unpalatable fact by confusing it with treason and equating it to the death penalty for treason in some western countries. This takes several forms. The Muslim may insist that the punishment only applies to treason - ie that the apostasy is irrelevant and the punishment only applies when there is also an act that is commonly regarded as treason. The Muslim may attempt to justify the punishment by pointing out that some western countries have the death penalty for treason, while ignoring the difference between apostasy and treason. The Muslim may simply attempt to confuse the two 'crimes'. Yet these Muslims believe that the penalty should apply for apostasy alone, including crimes that take you outside of Islam (eg acting gay), and may concede that they believe apostasy itself to be a form of treason - another example of self delusion reinforcing the deception of others. Apostasy [92] [93]

Freedom

Muslims will often attempt to portray the oppresion of non-Muslims under Shariah law as being merely a different 'interpretation' of freedom. Freedom [94] [95] [96] [97]

Democracy

Muslims will often attempt to claim that Islam is democratic, a different 'interpretation' of democracy, or attempt to argue that western countries are not in fact democractic either. Democracy vs Theocracy [98] [99]

Citizenship

Muslims will attempt to portray Dhimmitude as 'full' citizenship, despite the denial of justice, fundamental human rights, democracy, freedom etc and living under a different set of rules to Muslims. [100] [101] [102]

Compulsion

Muslims will often claim that Islam supports the concept of 'no compulsion in religion'. [103] The stretches the definition of compulsion to absurd lengths, given the inevitable 'problems' of trying to live as a non-Muslim under Shariah law (see for example Freedom and Human Rights and Justice). Muhammed himself would often put people in a position of convert or die, as a last resort when other methods failed.

Vigilantism

Muslims often interpret a question about the death penalty (see Cat Stevens example above) as a question about vigilantism. That is, they will avoid giving an answer about whether a crime attracts the death penalty in Islam by insisting that you are instead asking whether Islam permits them to conduct extra-judicial executions. More subtly, questions about introducing Shariah law are replaced with hypersensitivity to accusations of vigilantism. This can even be taken to the extent of equating any political lobbying with vigilantism. How Muslims ought to achieve the change they want is one of the hardest topics to get a straight answer from and this is one of the most common ways of avoiding it.

Muslims

Muslims will even use the definition of what is a Muslim to decieve people, for example a Sunni Muslim may insist that Muslims are not killing Muslims in North Africa, and that the Muslims are blameless victims, because he blames the conflict on Shite Muslims. [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]

Disowning Islam

Muslims disown Islam in many subtle (and not so subtle) ways when it assists in creating a false impression about Islam, see for example 'Muslims' above. Some other examples:

Islam doesn't exist

This is a more interesting form of diversion. If you ask why something happens in a specific Muslim country, you will be told that that country is run by a western imposed dictatorship, monarchy, democracy or whatever. Even though the particular barbaric practice strongly resembles Islamic law, it is the west's fault for preventing Muslims from setting up a 'prefect' Islamic state. For example, it is the west's fault that Saudi women must cover up from head to foot because they are responsible for the Saudi royal family, which prevent the 'correct' Sharia law that allows women to expose their face and hands, provided other standards of dress are met. It has nothing to do with 1400 years of Islamic law that instilled a belief that women are responsible for their own rape if they act like a 'piece of flesh'. [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124]

In an amazing feat of mental gymnastics, Muslims will also do the opposite, sometimes even in the same discussion. If you ask them about an aspect of Islamic law they wish to hide, they will claim that it is irrelevant because there are no true Islamic states. That is, if no country in existence today is ruled totally by Sharia law, you have no reason to be interested in what Sharia law is. [125][126][127]

Islam won't exist

A slightly different approach is taken when Muslims insist that their only goal is the short term goal of converting a few people, while pretending that the long term goals of Islam do not exist. They will conveniently deny that they seek to overthrow the Australian government and destroy personal freedom and other Australian values, and justify this by claiming that they aren't in the process of plotting the actual takeover. Yet it would be an inevitable outcome if they were sufficiently successful with their short term goals. They expect to openly promote an ideology of dictatorship and servitude, but not get criticised for it because they don't yet have the numbers to follow through with it. [128] It is as if the Nazi party started recruiting in your neighbourhood, but insisting they don't want to kill Jews because they're only goal at the moment is to recruit more members.

Denying personal responsibility for the consequences of Islam

An even stranger tactic is attempting to play down the significance of support for the unpalatable aspects of Islam (particularly stoning people to death) by denying direct responsibility for the consequences, for example by arguing that support for the death penalty is irrelevant unless you have a job as an executioner. [129][130][131] Islam does not actually have a role of state executioner. Stoning people to death is done publicly [132], with as many members of the public as possible encouraged to join in. The size of the stones is limited to prevent a quick death.

Equating impotence with benign intent

Muslims will often answer a question about what they want to achieve or what they want their society to look like with an explanation of what they are able to achieve or a complaint about being unable to achieve what they want. This is a strategy to avoid admitting to wanting something that their audience is likely to find unpalatable. This is often used in the context of reinforcing positive misconceptions about Islam, for example if a person claims that a Muslim does not actually want Shariah law, the Muslim will avoid correcting the misconception and do everything to reinforce it, short of outright lies that they can be held accountable for. The Muslim attempts to equate their inability to achieve Islamic law with lack of desire for Islamic law. [133] [134] [135] This can be taken to the extreme, in arguing that it is somehow only valid to discuss what is achievable in the short term, [136] even from a Muslim who considers it inevitable that Islam will come to dominate the world and who also considers it his religious duty to help bring this about. [137] This is often accompanied by an attempt to rephrase a simple question, for example by equating a question about what sort of Australia a Muslim would like to see with a question about whether that Muslim is about to take over the country in a military sense. [138] The Muslim may switch between admitting to wanting Islamic law and refusing to discuss it, depending on context, [139] and may also claim Islamic law to be inevitable [140] [141], then change tack and play down it's likelihood. A slightly different approach is to claim to not intend to impose shariah law on people as a way of implying they do not want to impose it on people, or would not do so if the opportunity arose. [142][143]

Denying personal responsibility for Islamic politics

Muslims will often refuse to answer direct questions about Islam and deny any personal responsibility for the consequiences of Shariah law or the process of re-establishing a Caliphate (a 'proper' Islamic state) and expanding the Caliphate as a militant empire. They offer the excuse that the law is the responsibility of the state, not the individual. This is particularly common when it comes to stoning people to death as a punishment. Death Penalty [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] Muslims will use this reasoning to argue that Shariah law is 'irrelevant', but in the same senstence argue that Islamic economic policy or historical scientific achievements are relevant. [151]

Encouraging useful idiots

A common tactic is to encourage non-Muslims who make false claims about Islam that suit the Islamic agenda, creating the impression that the Muslim agrees with the claims, and not correcting obvious errors. [152]

Denying following the Koran

A Muslim will even find a way to claim that they do not follow the Koran, if there is someone around who is willing to believe it. [153]

Contradictory spin

Obviously with so much spin it is inevitable that different Muslims will contradict each other with different stories or excuses, or individual Muslims will contradict themselves. Some examples:

Slaughtering pagans

Were the pagans on the Arabian peninsula slaughtered for reasons of geopolitical strategy, because they were hostile to Islam, or did they in fact all suddenly 'see the light' and voluntarily convert to Islam after Muhammed decreed they should be wiped out? If they did convert voluntarily, why the attempts to justify the slaughter? (see Collective Punishment and Genocide) A Muslim will also argue that the fact that paganism was not eradicated in the middle east is evidence that Islam did not decree its eradication, in the same post as claiming that Muhammed did in fact decree it and that the outcome was 'successful' due to every pagan voluntarily converting to Islam. [154]

Other examples

Editing News Articles

To start with, an example of a more direct and traditional form of deception from a Muslim on our forum: [155]

Claiming to represent Australian values

One of the more absurd claims: [156] Islam and Australian values

Marriage prior to puberty

Muhammed married one of his wives prior to her reaching puberty, and this is permitted under Islam provided that the husband does not have sex with her until she reaches puberty (but they may live together... Pedophilia). However Muslims will often claim the opposite [157] [158] or refuse to answer and offer every other deflection mentioned above. [159]

Four witnesses for the death penalty

Muslims will often claim that people can only be stoned to death for sexual crimes if there are four male witnesses, [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] however there are several other ways to satisfy evidentiary requirements. [165] [166]

Islam stricter than the Geneva convention

A quote should do for this one: "Islam recognises this, and lays down strict rules of conduct during conflicts between states, it is most certainly not a violence-oriented doctrine as you've claimed. No more than the Geneva convention is a violent doctrine, because it lays down a code of conduct for nations at war. In fact the Qur'anic rules of conduct in conflict are probably the strictest in human history, to the point that even trees are not permitted to be damaged during war." Remember that Muhammed himself slaughtered prisoners of war, displaced entire tribes, permitted his followers to capture and rape women as part of war and took plenty of captured wives for himself, and completely eradicated every religion except Islam from the Arabian peninsula. (See War) Not killing trees is about as generous as not killing the women, and certainly not out of concern for either.

How hard may I beat my wife?

There is genuine disagreement among Islamic scholars as to hard hard a man may beat his wife, and it runs the full gamut. When addressing people who are concerned about women's rights (ie non-Muslims) they invariably choose the most appropriate view (eg beating with a feather). Muhammed on the other hand pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was literally green with bruises (See Women's_rights).

Distinguishing rape and consensual sex

In Islam, rape is permitted wherever consensual sex is permitted (marriage, sex slaves). Where sex is not permitted rape and consensual sex recieve almost the same punishment. Muslims have attempted to portray Islam as taking rape seriously by focussing on some minor differences. For example, in the case of rape a court may order the perpetrator to pay a dowry to the victim. If the sex was consensual, no dowry is required. But the perpetrator gets whipped or stoned to death either way, depending on whether he is married. The marital status of the perpetrator has a bigger influence on the punishment for rape than anything else, to the extent that it dictates the punishment entirely. Whether or not there was actaully a rape or merely consensual sex has no bearing on the punishment, except for the fine. Obviously rape vs consensual sex makes a big difference to whether the woman/victim gets stoned to death, but this barely rates a mention. In addition, if a weapon is used in the rape, then the punishment is that for banditry, which is death. Of course, bandits get this punishment for using a weapon in a crime, regardless of whether there is a rape involved (see [167]Rape).

The concubine saga

The discussion of sex slaves is what originally drove me to write this article. After writing the first draft, I went back through that particular discussion and noted all the different deflection tactics used. I was actually quite surprised at how 'thick' the discussion was with various deceptions. Here are some of them. I include the URL for each link, as the number on the end of the URL indicates the post number in the thread.

Initially, the topic of sex slaves was asked by another member in the 'women in Islam' thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

The various deflection tactics were employed over the next 53 posts. A summary is given below:

semantics, Islam doesn't exist, deflection with an insult, accusation of loaded question

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to other religions, direct answer to related question that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to judaism

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125

attempt to justify deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/128#128

refusal to answer and already answered - ironically in same post, semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134

Islam doesn't exist, respond to question 'is it allowed' with 'it is not a priority'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136

Islam is 'realistic', but won't say how

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/138#138

deflects to attacking democracy, Koran can only be read in Arabic

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/140#140

deflection to generic attack on 'the west'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/142#142

ad hominem (insult), refusal to answer, already answered,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/144#144

deflection to homophobia in Europe, other religions, semantics, deflection to history rather than Islamic law, deflection to catholics, Islam doesn't exist, response on whether it is required rather than allowed, subjectivity of immorality

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145

ad hominem, already answered, lie (false claim that sex slavery does not exist in Islam), deflection to the west,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/146#146

deflection to other religions, ad hominem

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/149#149

Islam doesn't exist, deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/152#152

deflection to 'the west', Islam doesn't exist, refusal to answer

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155

semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/159#159

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/163#163

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/167#167

It was only after I started a new thread that I got a direct answer to the question of whether Islam permits sex slaves. However, no further details were given.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466

What to do?

All of these tricks ultimately take advantage of ignorance. The antidote to this is to make people aware of them. A lie becomes ineffective when enough people see it for what it is.

Islam forbids asking questions

Part of the reason for the attempts by Muslims to deflect all 'difficult' questions about Islam, is that Islam itself forbids people from asking questions they may not like the answer to. That is, they are only allowed to try to inform themselves of those aspects of Islam which they personally approve of. [168] With this in mind, the deception of non-Muslims can be viewed as an extension of this mandatory self deception through omission.

In other words, in order to deceive others, one must first delude oneself.