Muslims must not debate, will not debate, cannot debate. Part 1

When a Muslim agrees to “debate” a non-Muslim, all he is doing is announcing to the ummah that they will see Muslim domination restored. The whole family can enjoy a kafir being humiliated. It is not quite as entertaining as watching jizya being extracted from dhimmis, but it will do for now.

Muslims must not debate, will not debate, cannot debate. Part 1
Obnoxious, domineering and finally outMuslimed by a simple, quietly-spoken question

Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

In recent years we have been treated to a spectacle comprising verbal sparring between Muslims and non-Muslims and widely describes as “debates”. They are nothing of the sort. The kufaar (non-Muslims) engage in this activity in order to prove Muslims wrong. Muslims engage in it to humiliate the kufaar. These are non-overlapping magisteria. Muslims know this; the kufaar do not. In this, the Muslims always win; the kufaar, well, what dos it matter? Woe betide the Muslim who is foolish enough to actually attempt debate, for Islam, inconceivable to him, is indefensible.

A Muslim must not debate:

Know that the Muslim has contempt for reason, and sets it beneath Shari’a.

The good is not what reason considers good, nor the bad what reason considers bad. The measure of good and bad …is the Sacred Law, not reason. (Reliance of the Traveller, Book A:1.4)

Debate is a process of opposition between reasoned arguments. “Whoever seeks it [knowledge] for a worldly aim, such as… defeating opponents in debate… is blameworthy.” (Book A:3.1, this emphasis and all below, AP)

Know that …the merit of seeking Sacred Knowledge [“knowledge of the religion”] only applies to the seeker who thereby intends Allah Himself, not some end concerned with this world [such as defeating opponents in debate]. This world and what is in it are accursed, except for the remembrance of Allah, that which Allah loves, someone with Sacred Knowledge or someone learning it. (Book A:2.2.8)

In other words, a Muslim cannot debate when the question pertains to Sacred Knowledge, i.e., “knowledge of the religion”. No, let me rephrase that. It is forbidden for a Muslim to engage in a debate about Islam. The one who seeks to draw the Muslim into such debate is already “accursed.”

So why would a Muslim agree to debate a kafir, or even challenge a kafir to debate? The Muslim serves Allah not only by cursing the one who would debate Islam with him, but by refusing to debate. By misleading, insulting, humiliating, deceiving, ensnaring, ambushing, and generally demeaning his “debate” opponent, the Muslim affirms his respect for the Shari’a injunction against debate, and his supremacy over the kafir. To attempt to debate a Muslim is thus futile, and there can be only one outcome: the Muslim, in ways many and varied, abuses his opponent. Afterwards the kafir can protest all he wants about how he actually won the debate, but Muslims will be celebrating victory, for what they were engaged in, they had won.

None of this says anything yet about the merits or demerits of Islam and its “Sacred Law”. Even if Shari’a did not forbid it, the Muslim has every reason to avoid debate because Islam has no merits. The only way to defend Islam is by killing and maiming, and if that is not possible, then by intimidation, and if that is not possible, then by lying and trickery, and if that is not possible, then by insulting and abusing. They’re proud of that.

Certainly, on the basis of reason and ethics, it is not possible to lose a debate against a Muslim. But the kafir must understand very clearly before allowing his vanity to lure him into what looks like an easy win, that the savvy Muslim knows this too. Muslims will often go to elaborate lengths to set up their victim long before any debate question has even been agreed. For the kafir to still proceed, or worse, to imagine that he will demonstrate to the Muslim the error of Islam through force of reason, is to go on a fool’s errand. There is only one way to debate a Muslim: out-Muslim the Muslim.

Someone who understands this very well is the online missionary known as “Christian Prince” (CP). Of course, I oppose inviting people to “accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.” Being a serf of Jesus might not be quite as horrendous as being a slave of Allah, but to proselytise in a world where the individual has already attained freedom, rights and autonomy is a distinctly retrograde project. Yet, one must give credit where credit is due. CP knows exactly how to debate Muslims: by not deluding himself that Muslims are going to play by the rules of debate, and by dealing appropriately with a supremacist.

The Muslim will try to control his opponent right from the word go, if not earlier. The kafir who scrupulously sticks to the rules of the debate, leaves the Muslim free rein to flout the rules with abandon. If the kafir continues to insists on playing by the rules, the Muslims will simply deepen their contempt for this kafir who offers himself like a lamb to the slaughter. If the organisers or moderators are Muslim, they will not interfere with such behaviour, for they would be integral to the deceit.

It baffles kafir debaters when a Muslim debater asserts that he does not have to provide proof of his claims. This is entirely consistent with an ethos established in Shari'a:

When one believes in Allah's transcendence above created things, there is no need for debate on it, or for taking risks over [it]... But if the need arises for definitive interpretations to refute someone making unlawful innovations and the like, then the learned may supply them... (Book A:4.3)

CP knows exactly the process at work in his Muslim opponent’s mind, and controls him right from the start. He immediately steers the Muslim directly into his greatest weakness, his religion’s utter lack of merit, and does not give the Muslim any chance to escape. Of course, he is greatly aided by Muslims leaving knowledge of their religion to their “scholars,” whom they believe know Islam better than anyone else in the world. Superior knowledge of Islam is something Muslims are emotionally incapable of crediting the kufaar with, even if they are intellectually aware of the kafir’s expertise. Besides, even those lay Muslims who want to fully study Islam, the Shari'a describes as "deluded."

CP starts out politely enough, and waits for the Muslim to fire up his antics before letting rip, refusing to suffer any of the Muslim’s shenanigans. The Qur’an and the Hadith are the perfect trap that it is very easy to drive the Muslim into. It then becomes a simple matter of not allowing the Muslim to escape, whether that means shouting at him, insulting him, taunting him or whatever else will sabotage his supremacism, by which he is quickly reduced to a child bereft of a toy.

Since it will not be a debate, it is not a matter of winning or losing the debate. It is a matter of never losing control of the Muslim, thereby denying him the chance to dominate, which he is seeking all the time. So many outstanding kafir debaters, naïve to the eyeballs, end up perplexed, shocked or frustrated by how their Muslim opponents behaved in debates that they had entered into in good faith, such as here. Unbeknownst to them, the Muslim already controlled them before the debate had even begun, and their politeness simply sealed their fate.

The non-Muslim who ends up in such a situation with a Muslim has no option but to go straight for the jugular. Forget about your high principles; those have no meaning here. When dealing with rogues and scoundrels, treat them like rogues and scoundrels. Anything else and they will eat you alive. But know this: even if your Muslim opponent is an inoffensive gentleman, he still has no option but to lie, to deceive, to trick, because there is no truth that he can present about Islam that will withstand scrutiny.

For Muslims, “debating” the kufaar serves another crucial purpose: jihad. Muslims are “the best of people raised up for mankind.” (Qur’an 3:110) In other words, Muslims are supremacists — all Muslims are, not just the overtly nasty ones. To not act, or at least think of themselves, as “the best of people” would be to snub Allah’s favour bestowed on them in 3:110. Yet, to live amongst the kufaar who do not feel themselves subdued (9:29), is for everyday life to be an unrelenting taunt in which the kufaar rub the ugly truth of the Muslims' perfect religion (5:3) in their faces day in and day out, and they can offer no rebuttal, except cry “Islamophobia” and pull the occasional mass murder. It is insufferable.

The same as Muslims rejoice (whether discreetly or overtly) at every jihad mass murder, they throng to the great gladiatorial spectacles quaintly dubbed “debates” in which Muslim bruisers put the upstart kufaar, “the worst of creatures,” (98:6) in their place. They cheer and roar because the thrashing of a kafir is exactly what they are there to enjoy, payback for the constant “insults” to Islam, something that would not be tolerated if they had already managed to impose their Shari’a on the kafir’s country. When a Muslim agrees to “debate” a non-Muslim, all he is doing is announcing to the ummah that they will see Muslim domination restored. The whole family can enjoy a kafir being humiliated. It is not quite as entertaining as watching jizya being extracted from dhimmis, but it will do for now.

Finally, according to Shari'a:

Among them [theological polemicists] are those who busy themselves with theological polemics against heretical beliefs, and refuting the unorthodox. Scholars engaged in this are of two types, those in the wrong and those in the right, the former advocating something other than the sunna [the example of Muhammad], the latter advocating the sunna. Both are deluded.

The misguidedness of those in the wrong is obvious (since they have left the Koran and sunna which are divinely protected). As for those in the right, their delusion is in believing that arguing is the most important activity and greatest spiritual work in the religion of Allah Most High. They maintain that one's religion is not complete until one has made lengthy investigations into one's beliefs, and that someone who simply believes in Allah and His messenger without preparing a case for it is deficient in faith. Because of this mistaken presumption, they spend their lives learning how to dispute, conducting in-depth studies of statements of theological controversies until their spiritual insight eventually goes blind.

They do not pause to consider that the early Muslims, whom the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) testified were the very best of mankind, and who lived to see many a reprehensible innovation (bid'a) and deviant belief, did not expose themselves and their religion to quarrels and disputation, or busy themselves therein at the expense of their hearts and works. They did not talk about it at all, except under necessity to refute misguidance. And if they saw someone persisting in blameworthy innovation, they had nothing more to do with him, without further debate or argument. The hadith has reached us, “No people went astray after having been guided save that they were afflicted with arguing.'' (Book S:2.4)

People like Christian Prince, mentioned above, constantly urge Muslims to ask their sheikh to debate him. He imagines that they ignore his invitations because they fear a trouncing. That is not the reason. Sheikhs do not debate because, “When one believes in Allah's transcendence above created things, there is no need for debate on it.”

Part 2/...

Picture credits:

Screenshot from "Islam or Atheism which is more Rational?" Mohammed Hijab, YouTube, 3 Aug 2023


On 20 April 2024 at 10:36, Ben Dor A. wrote:

Dear Anjuli Pandavar 

Thank you for posting this information.

It reminds me of the various disputations between Christianity and Judaism.

Disputation of Barcelona 1263

Disputation of Tortosa1413

Disputation of Paris 1240

Criticism of Judaism
Best Regards 

Ben Dor A.

On 20 April 2024 at 15:35 , Jalal Tagreeb wrote:

Hi Anjuli,

This is a post on reddit related to my debate and CP. It was posted around 10 months ago.

"How Christian Prince shaved my Islamic apologist beard entirely!"

I am quoting from the post below in case you are interested to include things from it, like for example the link to his YouTube video on the debate/argument of Jizyah. I am also attaching screenshots of the actual post and some comments made by people whom I worked with and verified my case in the comments. Please confirm if the links are OK.

When I was preparing to become a Muslim scholar I was focusing – during the last 10 years – on a set of main arguments against both Christians and Secularists. One of which was the issue of Jizyah. Specifically, I was defending the argument that Dhimmis were not humiliated under the Islamic law/rule and thus this supports the idea that Islam is the religion of peace. You can see the details of the debate and my argument here:

and here,

At the end of both posts, you can see a sentence saying: "Edit: After long debate, I admit my defeat on defending this argument."

People told me before entering into such debates that Muslim scholars could not defend such argument in a strong way and had to avoid it or make claims that the humiliation was not true. But that was based on very weak sources (i.e. a paragraph in a book written by a scholar). I told them that I am different, I prepared for that and will be the person who will take revenge and turn the table on my opponents by winning the debate on this issue. As a conservative Muslim – at that time – from a very religious family with strong background in Islam and Arabic, I was confident that I will win.

Ironically, the opposite happened! There are around 73 comments as whole on the debate (first link) showing my "best" and how that was debunked using logic and Islamic/linguistic sources. That was a pure objective defeat and I admitted it.

However, what made that even more concrete and shaved my Islamic apologist beard entirely, was Christian Prince's debunking of that argument, which you can see in many parts of this video:

It was sent to me as an additional challenge after my surrender.

As a penance for that, Jizyah was calculated for my case according to Islamic rules and I paid that for Christians this year at the beginning of the Islamic year. The payment of Jizyah was used for Church maintenance.

On 21 April 2024 at 9:37, Anjuli Pandavar wrote:

"Jizyah was calculated for my case according to Islamic rules and I paid that for Christians this year at the beginning of the Islamic year. The payment of Jizyah was used for Church maintenance." — This is excellent. It signals the unthinkable to Muslims. The concept penance is clear, yet I think its applicability in our time is a matter for debate. Although the term "Jizyah" is conceptually inappropriate, it is politically appropriate. There is a sound kernel in all this, something that is not discussed.

By definition, a Muslim is permanently at war with the kufaar, and whether Muslims are flying passenger jets into skyscrapers, de-educating our children by making them think like Muslims and thereby destroying our future economic prospects, forcing our schools to provide halal meals, appropriating their kafir employers' time supposedly for prayer, or, indeed, whether they exact jizya from dhimmis or raid their non-Muslim neighbours, whether countries or houses, not to mention centuries of Islamic slavery that continues to this very day, in one way or another, the presence of Muslims and their permanently war on non-Muslims, is an astronomical historic cost on anyone and any society that is not Muslim. For all of this, Muslims have to be made to pay reparations for imposing Islam on the world. No one is talking about this.

My only reservation about your story above is that I am not sure I can defend punishing someone who is no longer Muslim. I stand to be corrected on this.