An Encounter With a Maqama Troll

In medieval Arabic literature, maqama were collections of tales recounted in a mixture of poetry and prose. Each vignette described the accomplishments of a sly trickster who hoodwinked his adversaries using deceptive rhetoric.

In recent days here at Gates of Vienna we’ve had our own silver-tongued Arab dazzling us with his maqama in comments on various posts. Dubbing himself “Muslim”, he left a series of reasonable-sounding, carefully balanced comments whose style verged on the unctuous. When anyone responded to him, he offered additional soothing bromides with equal verbal virtuosity.

It was clear when “Muslim” posted his first comment here that we had been graced with the presence of a sophisticated taqiyya artist on the level of Maajid Nawaz or Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. His comments and responses were carefully tailored to make him seem more tolerant and reasonable than any but the canniest of his fellow commenters.

Countering the rhetorical deceptions of maqama writers is a difficult and time-consuming task. They are adept at sliding out from under any attempt at refutation, all the while maintaining the persona of a calm, dispassionate, and thoroughly reasonable interlocutor. So I watched Muslim’s contributions with interest, paying special attention to the way he parried any criticism of Islam by other commenters, while I waited for an opportunity to offer a meaningful response.

Muslim’s preferred technique was to deflect any critical discussion of Islam by initially making a mild acknowledgment of some Islamic fault, followed immediately by an assertion pointing out an equal or greater fault in Western culture or history. This is a favorite tactic among “moderate” Muslims who do rhetorical battle with the kuffar — trot out the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or pogroms against the Jews. Or — their all-time favorite — the Holocaust. This sends their opponents haring through the underbrush, defending against whichever Christian or Jewish or atheist atrocity was adduced, and leaving the original issue concerning Islam all but forgotten.

It’s not worth engaging a maqama practitioner unless one has plenty of time and an inexhaustible amount of patience. And successive counterarguments always turn the exchange into a war of attrition — he will never truly concede a point, and will continue parrying any attempts at refutation until Judgment Day arrives.

If you decide to cross swords with a commenter like Muslim, it’s important to remember the best way to do it, to avoid the traps that he continually lays for his kuffar antagonists. I’ll have more to say about tactics later in this essay, but first I’ll present my interactions with him to show why he is no longer welcome to comment at Gates of Vienna.

I knew that I would eventually have to ban Muslim, but first I needed to demonstrate to my own satisfaction that he was not commenting in good faith, but was in fact a maqama troll.

My expectation was that a sufficiently skilled reply to him would elicit no response. Sure enough, when he mentioned the Crusades, I asked him a question (about how Syria, Palestine, and Egypt became Muslim after formerly being Christian) and received no reply.

That was strike one, and I was only going to allow him two strikes. I was eventually presented with another opportunity when he left this comment:

The proselytizing violence is an overplayed stereotype, which does not reflect the reality of roughly 20% plus of humanity.

Anyone can pick a large enough population, apply constant monitoring & then highlight fringe behaviour as representing the norm to the ignorant or agenda-driven echo chambers. [emphasis added]

By including the highlighted statement he had made himself vulnerable to fact-based refutation, because violence is deeply embedded in the scripture and laws of Islam, and is in fact the major technique employed to convert non-Muslims to Islam — or convert them into milch-cows for their Islamic masters.

First I told him this:

I have asked you reasonable questions previously and received no answers. If you fail to answer the questions detailed below, I shall assume that you are a troll, and any subsequent comments by you will be deleted.

And then I presented a carefully prepared rebuttal, drawing on the groundbreaking work of Major Stephen Coughlin to lay out the basis for jihad in Islamic scripture, tradition, and law:

You say: “The proselytizing violence is an overplayed stereotype”.

There is a text of Islamic law that defines jihad. In full, its title is ‘Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

The Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994) is “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.

It is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar. The government of Saudi Arabia has given its seal of approval to this translation as an authoritative source on the fiqh.

Book O, “Justice”, § 9 begins the section on jihad. Jihad is similarly defined in Book X “The Book of Jihad” from Ibn Rushd’s book The Distinguished Jurist, and in Book XIII “Siyar (Relations with non-Muslims)” of the Hidayah:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying war to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.

It goes on to explain that the greater jihad is the struggle for the spiritual self. However, it also tells us that the hadith that is weak or false, depending on what authority is referenced, so is not authoritative. When the book refers to the greater and lesser jihad, it indicates that it is not a part of the law of jihad.

The following passage is from an English-language high school textbook from the Islamic Center of Oakland, California:

To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government. The military education is glued to the faith and its meaning, and the duty to follow it.

Take a look at Koran 4:95:

Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. Unto all in Faith Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward…

Majid Khadduri, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, wrote War and Peace in the Law of Islam (1955):

It follows that the existence of a dar al-Harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military. (pp. 63-64)

Continuing with the discussion of the “lesser” jihad Reliance of the Traveller says:

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

  • Fighting is prescribed for you (Koran 2:216)
  • Slay them wherever you find them (Koran 4:89)
  • Fight the idolators utterly (Koran 9:36)

And at o9.0:

… and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay the zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them.”

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I’ll just add a short quote from The Quranic Concept of War, which was written in 1979 by the serving Brigadier General S. K. Malik when he was chief of staff of the Pakistani army.

So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the Enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart’s dream into a reality. (p. 58)

So please explain to me: How do you determine that “The proselytizing violence is an overplayed stereotype” in Islam?

Or: Which verses of the Koran, and which authentic Hadith, are you willing to repudiate?

After posting this response, I waited. I did not expect an answer — when cornered by an argument that he can’t convincingly answer, a maqama troll will simply ignore it.

And that’s what happened in this case. For more than 24 hours Muslim ignored my questions, all the while leaving dozens of comments on other posts and in response to other commenters. After those 24 hours his time was up, and I started deleting his comments. He left eight or ten more, which I promptly consigned to the trash can.

Eventually he must have noticed that nothing he wrote was getting through, and returned to my rebuttal to deliver his (lame) response. At that point I could have rescinded the ban, approved his comment, and fisked it in response. However, that would have led me down an endless rabbit hole of point-counterpoint, which is the whole purpose of the exercise for the maqama troll: to make Islam-critics argue at length indefinitely, and take up massive quantities of their time, thus effectively diverting them from their mission, to no real purpose.

However, it would be useful and informative to present Muslim’s response to me here, as a case study in what a maqama writer does when he has been backed into a rhetorical corner:

Step 1: Unctuous flattery

Baron — With respect, as with most here, I do work & play, along with spending some leisure time here, so I can see differing views. As a someone who is contrarian by nature, I enjoy reading & participating.

I appreciate that you have allowed someone who is on the “Other” side space to engage in hopefully civil discourse.

Step 2: The first lie, feigning unawareness

I have not seen, or had the time to see > “I have asked you reasonable questions previously and received no answers.”

This is obviously false, since he paid close attention to every other commenter who responded to him, offering further counter-responses.

Step 3: The second lie, feigning ignorance, with more flattery

I am not a professional scholar, just an ordinary amateur. I respect the fact that you have taken the time to research.

Step 4: Continue with some boilerplate

I do have a sense of idiosyncratic humour.

If you do delete my future posts as trolling, fair enough, it is your experienced eye & your site.

Step 5: Continue the third lie, feigned ignorance

I have heard of the “Reliance of the Traveller”, mentioned by a friend of mine, but as a layman, I am not that intrigued as to read about Jihad in academic detail, as I engage with the Greater Jihad daily, not the Lesser Jihad (at all).

A literate, educated Muslim who comments extensively on an anti-jihad website cannot be ignorant of Reliance or other major sources on Islamic law. Such a statement strains credulity to the breaking point.

Step 6: The fourth lie, denying an authoritative source, while adding the old familiar all-religions-are-equivalent line

I doubt that Saudi has recognised Al Azhar’s translation, as authoritative, as they are two rivals in prestige as well as Sunni schools of thought. It is similar, to a lesser degree, to the variant number of books in the Protestant Bible as opposed to the Catholic.

He must think we’re all stupid, to tell us anything so blatantly mendacious. A copy of the official authentication of Reliance of the Traveller by the President of the Fiqh Academy in Jeddah is included in the “Documents” section at the front of the book, in English and Arabic, with the President’s signature included in the Arabic version. Official authentications are also included from Syria and Al-Azhar University.

Muslim is neither ignorant nor foolish; he knows these facts. We are being lied to.

Step 7: A diversion, possibly including a tactical error

I know that Saudi is hot on “weak” hadiths, so what you are stating does appear to have some Saudi style theology.

This is strange, because if the Saudis are to be deprecated, and they are big on weak hadiths, that would tend to support my contention that there is no “greater” non-violent jihad, which is attested only by weak hadiths.

Step 8: Reluctant concurrence, but with a twist

No genuine Muslim believer would ever dispute the words of the Quran in its native language.

He knows he can’t repudiate any Koranic verses without losing his credibility entirely. But notice the implication that one must read it in Arabic. If I had responded to him, I would have pointed out that 80% of the world’s Muslims don’t speak Arabic, yet they learn Islamic law somehow — often using English-language texts.

Step 9: Continued feigned ignorance (“vaguely aware”), with more boilerplate equivalences

I’m not familiar with Majid Khadduri & his work.

AFAIK, Dar ul Harb is the abode of War. As to what & who qualifies for inclusion in that category is something that I’m not familiar with. What I’m vaguely aware of is that there is not just a binary Muslim abode vs “Other” abode, but other categories e.g. Dar us Sulh etc. The other categories allow for alliances & mutual non-aggression pacts.

As to war, that is AFAIK similar to the rest of the world, or even more peaceful. In the West, & most Westphalian states, including Muslim heritage states, take their cue from western theories.

1.   “There are no permanent friends (despite the honeyed language), just common overlaps of selfish National Interests”
2.   Clauswitzian “war by other means” in all spheres of life e.g. Olympic sport rivalry.
3.   Total War — the militirisation [sic] of all environments leading to Full Spectrum Dominance including space, where all are chess pieces, including innocent civilians e.g. nuclear bombing of Japanese civilians.
4.   Social Darwinian Heartless Babylon/Roman style “Survival of the Fittest” & “Nature is bloody in tooth & claw”.
5.   Machiavellianism — where the powerful aim to remain in power by fooling the weak e.g. even Churchill’s “Bodyguard of Lies”.

Step 10: Generalized dishonesty, repeating false assertions about the peaceful nature of Islam

In Islam, only the oppressed have a right to Self-defence, aggressors are rebuked, as is religious coercion.

The proselytizing violence stereotype unique to Islam, is no stranger to any of the numerically dominant faiths/ideologies including, if not more so, Christianity. The unique “sword of Islam” stereotype is disengenuous [sic].

Many a fair-minded non-Muslim scholar has scorned the agenda-driven stereotypes.

Step 11: A section of argument based on Western academic writings, including some of the jargon

The baggage of Occidental/Oriental rivalry has ancient roots e.g. the demonisation of Persians by Greek historians, the fear of Carthage & her treatment etc. The psychological effect of violence at a young age remains irrationally traumatising the adult e.g. Crusades.

History is an anchor, but there is no need to let it mindlessly weigh us down & our posterity forever.

“Occidental vs. Oriental” is in there to push the buttons of Western academics à la Edward Said, but it doesn’t work with Counterjihad people, who have had all that stuff deprogrammed out of them.

Step 12: Reluctant concurrence again

Naturally, as a Muslim, I do not repudiate a single verse of the Quran, nor the authentic Hadith.

Step 13: The final twist of the knife, using abrogated verses of the Koran

What I do say is follow the Prophetic plea:

  • “No compulsion in religion”
  • “Do not be the Oppressor”
  • “I have been sent for naught but spreading goodness”

If I had engaged Muslim in any further argumentation, I would have pointed out that under the Doctrine of Abrogation (which is Koranically established), the earlier peaceful verses from the Meccan period were abrogated by those of the later Medinan period, and have no legal force. Notice that he failed to cite sura and verse, knowing that he would be vulnerable on those points if he did so.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I enjoy participating in such arguments occasionally, but only to a limited extent, because ultimately they are a waste of time.

Muslim was practicing sacred misdirection at our blog, as required by the Koran and hadith. His task — whether he set it himself or was assigned it by his superiors — was to confuse, distract, divert, and otherwise interfere with the enemy, i.e. us, the kuffar. He was wasting our time and keeping us from doing more useful and productive things in our efforts to roll back the Islamization of the West.

In addition to those functions, he was behaving in a manner designed to make non-Muslims look bad and Islam look good. By inducing other commenters to react as they do among themselves, he made himself appear more reasonable, more open, more tolerant, and more humane than the loudmouthed “Islamophobes” he pitted himself against.

Anti-jihad commenters who deliver their usual responses to a skilled maqama troll are making a mistake. When they refer to “desert savages” or “7th-century barbarians”, or mention “the pedophile prophet”, or talk about “Islamic hellholes”, they are making the troll appear the nicer, more reasonable fellow, and are scoring points for him.

This is because when you argue with a maqama troll, you are NOT trying defeat him with your verbal acrobatics, or convince him that you’re right. That’s never going to happen. He’s in this for the long game, and has no need whatsoever to best you in an argument. His arguments are a smokescreen.

What he is doing instead is to discredit you in the eyes of fence-sitters — non-Muslims who are not yet convinced that there is any inherent danger in Islam that needs to be vigorously opposed. If one of these hitherto neutral observers happens upon a thread like this, they may well be convinced that Muslim is right and you are wrong, just by the tone of his discourse, as contrasted with yours. That observer is then delayed for a while longer in joining the Red Pill Brigade, as Major Coughlin might call it.

When that happens, Muslim wins. He has performed a service to Islam, as he intended. And you may have the satisfaction of telling him off, but you will have gained nothing.

That’s why I advise commenters to fight smart. When you deal with a maqama troll, consider your answers carefully. Make your responses fact-based, and deliver them in a neutral, reasonable tone — just like he does. Remember that your larger purpose is to recruit Red Pill Cadets.

Above all, study the material. Buy a copy of the Koran. Buy a copy of Reliance. Read Major Coughlin’s book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

Finally, don’t direct invective at Muslims in the comments. Your time would be better spent studying Islam so that you can understand it the way a Muslim does.

Only when you learn to think like the enemy will you be able to defeat him.

164 thoughts on “An Encounter With a Maqama Troll

    • In other words, we must be constantly mindful that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… It’s a duck.

      No matter what the smooth trolls tell you…

      I’m sure that’s written somewhere in the koran…

  1. Arguments about the Crusades, Inquisition, the Holocaust etc are red herrings because we are not faced with any of these today. However, we are faced with terrorism, and a particular definition of jihad.

    • Also: what does America have to do with the Crusades? The Crusades were mostly done by the French. America is not France, nor is America Christian.

      • Adding to what you say, Dr. Bill Warner, a well-known investigator of islam, discovered in his historical research that during the first twenty years of the islamic takeover of the countries bordering the southern and northern shores of the Mediterranean, a total of about 538 battles were undertaken.
        By contrast, the Crusades (which were undertaken to free the enslaved people in and around the Holy Land) consisted of a mere eight battles.

      • Wrong.

        America (western heme) was discovered by Columbus when he tried to find a route around Muslim Middlemen.

        Same year he set off Spain (his imperial sponsor) was expelling both Muslims and Jews from Spain.

        It’s all connected.

        • Islam closed off the Med. to trade and depopulated its coastal areas. This alone probably held back civilisation for 200 years.

      • Which historians are responsible for the negative historiography surrounding the. Crusades?
        Make a list.
        It’s not going to be Catholics.

        • Oh, yes. Maybe not American Roman Catholics, but European Roman Catholics? Absolutely certain!

          Western historians – with very few exceptions – take a multicultural stance with regard to (their own) history.

          Please notice that history is not an exact science, but (at best) a social science. It’s looking back at events and drawing conclusions from that. You can see anything you want in history.

          • In ‘Mohammed and Charlemagne’ (a somewhat misleading title), Belgian historian Henri Pirenne theorized in 1935 that the impact of all the Germanic invasions on the Roman Empire was relatively minor and that the *real* Dark Ages did not begin until North Africa was lost to Islam Mare Nostrum became a sea fraught with Muslim pirates – the terrorists of the Middle Ages.
            Not the most exciting book you’ve ever read, it’s more like a rant by a history professor to some colleagues, a thorough knowledge of the period is essential, and knowing Latin and classical Greek would help, but still interesting.

          • Look for Emmet Scott’s update of Mo and Charlemagne on our sidebar. That one IS a fascinating book. It proceeds from Pirenne’s original theories with lots of archeological information they didn’t have in the 1930s. His book and the one by the German professor – has a really dumb title that the prof told me was forced on him by the publisher when they put out the translation – are two basic history books – one about the West and Islam, one about the beginnings of Islam, its roots – are worth anyone’s time.

            Ironically, the Germans are doing a lot of research exposing the myths of Mohammed.

          • Here is the Emmet Scott book:

            Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy by Emmet Scott (2012) Paperback

            I recommend reading the reviews. As I said after reading it, others there say: reading that book caused a paradigm shift. Boy, did it ever.

            Here is the Baron’s review in 2012:


            That book is a permanent fixture on our sidebar.

            The other one, by Dr. Pressburg,

            What the Modern Martyr Should Know: 72 Grapes and not a single virgin.

            is on Kindle now. We need to update our link since I think it may lead to the hard copy, which Amazon lists at more than $150.00 – I’ve seen that done with other books. Some strange Amazon glitch.

            One reviewer sums it up nicely:

            Yes, of course, there it was: semantics, wrong translations, and suddenly, it starts getting coherent and logic, the whole story. An enormously exciting scientific journey. I read it as a thriller with all sorts of new perspectives. Science as it ought to be.

            Here is ‘our’ review:


            It was written by a commenter I’ve not seen in at least a year. I hope he’s okay, since it was my impression he had limited energy. A fascinating thinker, though.

  2. I have had discussions with muslims about some of the contents of the koran, and if it’s something they don’t agree with, even when you show it to them in black and white and in context, they will blame the translation. This includes muslims who don’t speak Arabic and who may never have even read the koran themselves.

    • Ask them to show you the same passage in a translation they themselves accept as authoritative. Would that work, oh ye battle experienced? 🙂

      • “Feigned ignorance” will show up at that point. They will claim not to be familiar with the passage in question.

        • Baron, I am very familiar with these various tactics from dealing with character-disordered people, such as narcissists, milder variants of psychopaths, and various covert bullies. There is a vast literature out there outlining their many strategies, their masquerades, their impression management efforts. I have long maintained that learning to effectively stop them in interpersonal relations must come before dealing with them in the political arena. The internet is very useful in this regard, because it is easier to learn in a low risk environment than in direct confrontation in families and workplaces. Little did I think I would encounter them in Islam.

          I see out society as crippled. I find the immune system analogy very useful. If you have a healthy immune system, then the early attacks by foreign invaders can easily be dealt with. But in a weakened immune system, where neither the invaders nor one’s own cancerous cells can be recognized for what they are, the organism begins to succumb — unless it can be jolted into a response and rebuilds its immunity. As a rare cancer survivor who was able to do just this, I believe it can be done on the social playing field as well.

          • Yeah, but I grew up with a narcissistic (we think) mother and an abusive father. That sorta gives one an inward self-reliance on one’s own observations and a “show me” attitude toward others. Indeed there are “many strategies…” involved in the abuser’s tactics–and strategy–toward the targets (there were five of us children).

            I recognize the threat. Unfortunately, due to my personal health circumstances, my *physical* response is limited. But I encourage awareness of the situation (re. Islamic immigration-invasion of the West) whenever I can work it into a political conversation or other decently-fitting talk. I also read to inform myself even better about the depth of Islam’s duplicity toward the rest of the world.

            I’m so pleased that your immune system saved your life!

          • Child abuse/trauma, which is what you’re discussing, is overt in Islam, where babies are objects to be fondled as long as they’re not damaged.

            The rampant trauma our own kids experience often goes unremarked because for many it’s part of their family’s culture. Lots of “they’re too young to remember, they’ll get over it, how can you control kids without hitting them, etc.”

            See this site for information:


            ACEs = Adverse Childhood Experiences

            There is a simple test, though I consider it an initial attempt; they need to broaden it to include damaging illness in childhood, etc.

            Here, you can look at your own ACE score (~ 6 questions) but more important, you can see the ways in which your resilience was strengthened in your experience with important people in your childhood.


            The sidebar holds a wealth of experience – explaining why so many people end up overweight, why heart disease is so prevalent, why auto-immune diseases are a reflection of childhood trauma…and so on.

            A compassionate and fascinating book ought to be required reading:

            Too Scared To Cry: Psychic Trauma In Childhood

            Read the reviews. What a compassionate, observant doctor.

  3. This one identified himself from the start, others I have seen do not, but they use the same tactic, and expect the same responses, but they do get confused when faced with the unexpected, particularly the Muslim crusades as Islam spread out of the Arabian Peninsular. They will often try and compare events happening in bible history 4000 years ago with current Islamic incidents. They assume ignorance, they are used to dealing with the simpletons of the left and that is their vulnerablity, this one was better than most. Well done Baron, I kept clear.

    • “…they are used to dealing with the simpletons of the left…”

      As do many or most politicians. This is an arrogance that could be their ultimate undoing. We can only hope.

    • MC you may be interested to know that when the Arabs swept out of Arabia they did not identify as “Muslim” until half a century later. Islam is a back-story invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik to justify Arab Imperialism (his reign) and provide a superstition to counter-balance the Christianity of the Byzantines and Zoroastrianism of the Persians.

      “An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings – Jay Smaith”

      The archaeology destroys the claims Islam makes for itself – and Muslims have no defense against it.

      This is how we win.

      • This is how we win? Muslims, when faced with a rational response to their taqiyya plug their ears and sing. We win by cleaning the stables of our ruling elite, denying Islam the protection we give legit religions, ending the hijra, and deporting Muslims, all that we can.

      • Moa,

        Thank you. I’m going to look into this as somewhere, sometime I’ve heard/read a very similar “back-story” explanation – I can’t remember Arab/ic names (I seem to have no difficulty with Russian names, but Arabic …) I very much hope you are entirely correct.

  4. Great tactics, Baron. We appreciate your time and effort on this difficult problem….a deep rational description of the logical issues.

    What I have been doing in my own little circle of friends: When I sense an Islamophile, I simply say: All religions except Islam ask each of us to abide by some version of the Golden Rule in our relations with all other people. Not so with Islam. With Islam there ain’t no love there if you are ‘other’*. If I’m wrong, show me examples.


    * There is probably little love there even if you are a Muslim.

    • Sorry; I couldn’t resist. I responded two, maybe three, times with short factual sentences. Nothing longer than a short paragraph.

      Need I say I didn’t see any responses? 🙂

  5. Islam says that Muhammad is a “rasul” – a lawgiving prophet like Moses and Jesus. The difference is that the lawgiving of Moses and Jesus was accompanied by the public manifestation of the Divine Glory (Jesus in that He is a King). There’s no record on the face of history that the event on on Mount Sinai was repeated during the life of Muhammad, or at all. This the claim of divine legislation in his case is blasphemy and sedition.

    • If Muhammad were a prophet why the need for the following?
      1) Abrogation. No true prophet would ever need to abrogate anything, he would be able to see what is universally true and communicate it from the beginning.
      2)The idea that Islam is only truly understood in an obscure dialect of Arabic. Would not a true prophet be able to communicate to everyone in there native language in order to spread his message to everyone, even if translated? A true message can be translated successfully.
      3) A true prophet would have a message that would survive the test of time and not kill people who abandoned it’s following. “We hold these truths to be self evident”.

      • What respectable religion would have clerics proudly declaring — as Qaradawi did — that the religion would not have survived without the death penalty for apostasy?

        • A high penalty for apostasy is quite common. Not least total ostracism.

          The Islamic death penalty for it is the most brutal.

          • I’m aware that Christians used to execute heretics (though not as many as popular imagine supposes). But there’s no Christian who would endorse the policy today — must less claim that Christianity would have expired without it.

          • Trying to reply to Radegunda below, I keep popping up replying to Monty.

            The Christian execution of heretics was not generally for their unbelief per se, but because vocal opposition of the religion could lead others away and thus imperil their souls. If you kept quiet about it you would probably be okay. But openly flouting the faith could cause others to fall away, you would then be responsible for their damnation , which would be seen as worse than murder.

  6. This is the essential toolbox I keep consulting in such situations: A List Of Fallacious Arguments

    On the crusades thing, it always reminds me of the situation where George W. Bush was made to apologize for the usage of this word in connection with the Iraq war. He shouldn’t have apologized, but he didn’t have the wits to refute it (I bet Trump would have shown a very different response, were he in these shoes that time). We use ‘crusade’ as a metaphor for a struggle for a course we deem rightful, not just for outright war. It is very much the same usage as in the given explanation for ‘jihad’. Both terms are equal so much that it works as direct translation. I haven’t seen a single sentence where it wouldn’t fit. So if Muslims condemn one, they inevitably condemn the other. Only our guilt reflex, which Muslims don’t have, makes us keep losing out here. And, please allow me to say this (knowing from previous encounters where I stand on the topic of belief), this guilt reflex is not a recent occurrence in the many sicknesses of modern civilization, it is deeply rooted in Christianity. It is an inherited burden.

      • I found it immediately (maybe the fact that I’m using a Mac today makes a difference?).

        • works for me, too, on a Chromebook. I have a list bookmarked.

          There is a college here in Central Virgina – male only, and permits students to have firearms (though they’re locked in the armory. Boys around here go hunting). You can keep your horse, theoretically.

          Anyway, Hampden-Sydney College (steadfastly refusing to become a “university”) is a private school catering mostly to the sons of small town America who will go on to earn law degrees or major in finance and then go back home to set up business there. Its chief claim to fame is the requisite course that ALL students must take if they’re to graduate:

  7. A good analysis. However, this assumes readers are persuaded by reason. Some are, but this is a smaller percentage than you would think. Most people are persuaded by *emotional* arguments.

    In this case, if you do know the maqama’s arguments and Islamic doctrines then throwing in the off ‘pedophile prophet’ and ‘7th Century barbarism’ not only demonstrates contempt for a disgusting ideology, not only refuses to grant Islam respect it does not deserve, not only lays a trap that the responder may become emotional and blow their cover – but it is FACTUAL.

    So, respectfully, I disagree, Baron. We must indeed demonstrate moral superiority for sure – but you also cannot win by defending. You must fight! and using factual arguments that evoke emotional responses is the way to do it. And you must fight and undermine the enemies assumed moral superiority – which means ATTACKING them. Do not grant them ANY respect. No quarter!

    Now, you may think that this is madness and uncivilied. Well, in that case, tell that to Ben Shapiro who is a master of this, and laid out exactly what must be done in his little guidebook:
    “How to defeat Leftists and Destroy Them”.

    And the same works for Islam. But the real trick is not to debate what Mohammed did do or didn’t do – but to point out the irrefutable evidence that Mohammed did not exist at all – at least not in the way Islam portrays him.

    Then you have the Islamist completely on the ropes and all their Koranic studies count for naught – because you are moving the battle into the arena of irrefutable satellite imagery and archeology. But all the while you MUST confront and destroy their moral foundation and show they support pedophilia and gang rape and anti-Semitism. Because regular joes yawn about the finer points of the definition of jihad, but they do feel total revulsion at pedophilia and taharrush gamea (Islamic gang rape) and violent jihad.

    This is why I disagree. Fences-sitters are polarized quickly by moral arguments, and calling out FACTS about Islamic pedophilia and historical mass murder sorts people into pro-Islamists and counter-jihadis very quickly. And the number of the later can be produced at a much higher rate than the former using crude and unmissable moral arguments instead of academic logic and reasoning.

    So please, take a look at Ben Shapiro’s book. You MUST push back against the enemy, but you do have to know their arguments in order to move them off the ideological battlespace they are used to fighting on (Islamic doctrine) and into a different fact-based battlespace entirely (archeology). That is the way to defeat them – because they cannot argue on the basis of archaeological fact. Throwing in acerbic remarks is lowbrow, but it does scoop up those who want to dislike Islam but need an emotional reason why.

    Or, as my fighter pilot instructors used to say, “If you have to cheat to win, win. If you are not winning, you are not cheating hard enough”. And I am to win, by any and all means necessary. This is ideological equivalent of Total War – and a flamethrower is a handy thing – if used at the right time on the right target.

    • Yes, I know that people are convinced by emotional arguments, not logical ones. I’m using logic here demonstratively, aimed at people who are already convinced.

      As I said before, my larger goal is to recruit Red Pill Cadets. Most of them will be convinced by non-logical arguments. One of the things that will prevent them from being convinced is the fact that “moderate” Muslims seem more calm, reasonable, urbane, and tolerant than the Counterjihad people who argue with them. They are, in a word, nicer guys.

      This means that when you use invective in arguments with Muslims, you lose. Not the argument itself, but a small skirmish in the larger war. Some Westerner out there who has not yet been convinced, and, as you say, relies on emotional arguments, will be turned off by your invective, and conclude that, yes, “moderate” Muslims are reasonable, decent people, and therefore no war exists or is necessary. And he will have reached this conclusion emotionally.

      If you fight this way, you lose. And if there are enough people who fight the same way, and never understand what we are up against, we will lose this war.

      Muslim won most of his engagements with other commenters because he understands all this, and they don’t. Under those circumstances, people who reach their conclusions based on emotion will come down on Muslim’s side. Is that really the outcome you prefer?

      • It is completely true that no amount of reasoned debate will sway Muslim – he is too indoctrinated and anti-scientific to modify his hypothesis (which Islam is) with observations (reality). The goal is indeed to convince those on the sidelines.

        However, I would argue that it is far better to recruit a few good people who are prepared to use the bayonet, than more people who are barely convinced and will be inactive. That is, at this stage, I argue that it is preferable to have a company SEALS to a fleet of sailors.

        In practical terms, what is needed is more people like yourself and Tommy Robinson – no matter how many times you are hit you keep getting up and keep fighting. This is what makes you more valuable than a great mass of people who agree with you but are silent.

        Quality counts.

        Furthermore, I would recommending how the GamerGate guys defeated the SJWs as described in Vox Day’s “SJWs Always Lie!”. This excellent book (along with Shapiro’s one) gave excellent advice on how to beat these people.

        You MUST attack and grind them down until they are demoralized. There is no other option. But this cannot be done with knowledge and skill – as you point out. Also, it is impermissible to make racist or anti-Muslim arguments. However, it is essential to attack and discredit Allah, Mohammed, Islam and Sharia.

        Hence, stating “Mohammed was a pedophile who raped the minor Aisha bint Abu Bakr at age 9, and used to suck on the tongues of the little boys Hussein and Hassan bin Ali are all attested in the hadith. Do you agree with this behavior?” . This destroys any claim to Mohammed’s moral superiority, informs the fence-sitters (who do not know what Mohammed was said to be like) and skewers the Muslim apologist into defending something abhorrent.

        We MUST attack. You cannot win by only defending.

        Furthermore, you mention Muslim evaded questions he did not like. This is a weakness they have, so exploit it ruthlessly. Point out they will not answer the question and re-ask it, again and again and again. Highlight exactly what they are doing – the fence sitters will see that they are having to avoid to answer questions that any decent person would automatically be able to denounce. This is one of their biggest weaknesses and we should address it explicitly and repetitively.

        In “SJWS Always Lie!” Vox Day points out trolls only do what they do because they consider it “fun”. If you confront them, expose them and never, ever give it then they get ground down and they eventually go away. When this is done enough times they quit the fight, sometimes permanently. I have done this to several trolls on other forums.

        This is your site and I respect your sovereignty. But in order to win, we must attack their ideology in a manner befitting an existential ideological war and not a academic-lounge debate.

        “Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting.” – Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in WWII

        “Fighting spirit one must have. Even if a man lacks some of the other qualifications, he can often make up for it in fighting spirit.”
        – Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

        “You must take the war to the enemy. You must attack and go on attacking all the time.” – Major Willy Omer François Jean Coppens de Houthulst, Belgian Air Service, 37 victories WWI.

        “Their element is to attack, to track, to hunt, and to destroy the enemy. Only in this way can the eager and skillful fighter pilot display his ability. Tie him to a narrow and confined task, rob him of his initiative, and you take away from him the best and most valuable qualities he posses: aggressive spirit, joy of action, and the passion of the hunter.” – General Adolf Galland, Luftwaffe.

        • While we must attack, a prudent warrior understands that defense is often the best strategy. Let the opponent exhaust himself on your battlements and then you can emerge to finish him off.

          A leader in the recent past who urged the ‘always attack’ doctrine was Hitler. After 1943 his troops were never allowed to retreat under any circumstances. Army commanders withdrew from a battle at their own personal peril.

          There is also a difference between attacking with a hammer and attacking with a small sharp knife. While the hammer can have effective results and give the wielder a satisfied feeling of accomplishment, against the wily opponent the stiletto is a much more effective tool. Particularly if the opponent is manipulated to wield it on himself.

        • I came across Vox Day’s book the other day on Amazon. Downloaded a sample. It’s on my list … so many books, so little time.

        • @ moa: I haven’t had the advantage of reading the writers you quote. These I have:

          –von Clausewitz wrote his “On War” so that Prussia would never again suffer a humiliation like Jena/Auerstadt. Naturally, aggression played into his understanding of What Went Wrong for Us.

          –However, in approx. 500 or 300 BCE, Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War” (my copy ed. and foreword by James Clavell, Delacorte Press, NY, 1983):
          “Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” (p. 2)
          Book of Five Rings, quoted in the Foreword by James Clavell.

          Clavell notes that the first translation out of Chinese into a Western language was in 1782 by a French Jesuit. He states, “There is a legend that this little book was Napoleon’s key to success and his secret weapon. Certainly his battles depended upon mobility, and mobility is one of the things that Sun Tzu stresses.”

          Other statements by the ancient, successful Chinese warrior:
          “All warfare is based on deception” (p. 11) ==> very useful for CJs to know, as the Baron set forth!

          The lead sentence of Chapter III, The Sheathed Sword, is the complete quotation which Clavell excerpted in his Foreword:

          “To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting” (p. 15)

          Not one superfluous word can be found in this powerful little (82 pp.) book.

      • My “awakening” came after the baby pic. Everyone else I know felt some kind of harp music pulling at their strings and, from Dublin to Berlin, vowed to open their homes. I felt utter disgust and revulsion that someone would try to manipulate my feminine emotions that way.

        Interestingly, I was only a couple of months out of a 60-hour a week newsroom job, out in the countryside doing hard labour on a property. I don’t think I would have reacted thus had I still been plugged into the machine. So yes huge emotional reaction causes change. Previously I was concerned about terrorism, of course, and I had some rather frightening, rather outlandish metaphysical ideas that Islam was hijacked by evil, which on closer inspection, may be true.

        My new understanding is that Islam IS evil and before that penny hadn’t dropped. Islam-watch was a first stop because one naturally feels the Muslim world must know best and one owes it that respect. The first thing you find out about there is the vomitous paedo stuff. No animal or Neanderthal has sex with a prepubescent girl. Early on I told the very trolly board there that all Muslims have a responsibility to redeem Muhammed in the name of Christ as he was a very brave man who set out to bring the Arabian pagans into the JudeoChristian fold yet failed so wholly and abysmally so early in his life and paid with his soul.

        I can’t know whether this is true, of course, but the comment certainly illicted frantically furious emotional reactions from the Muslims there. Only months later did I start coming here and Gates of Vienna is for people who are looking for more detailed, nuanced conversation. I know Pamela Geller’s boundaries are the right ones out there but here the finer points garnered, all of which can be shrapnel in any blunt emotional argument anytime. Strangely … after my research led me seamlessly to critiques of the left (including Shapiro’s important booklet), I was confronted with making the (fortuitous, blessed) U-turn on Israel, and my body rebelled. It felt like a cigarette craving and I had to consciously choose to stand with Israel, which I did forthwith.

        Bear in mind, that I am quite steeped in my Christian faith, including mystical western and Jewish traditions and I revere my spiritual practise, but because of my work-day life (which I was so proud I was so detached from) the collective clearly seeped into my sovereign mind. This experience is telling in terms of the real danger Jews are in and the protection they require. Worse, after a weekend of joyful and carefree imbibing and jazz club hopping in the city recently, I returned and found myself irritated at an article by Caroline Glick. Fortunately, I noticed this and was horrified and further steeped myself in compelling pro-Zionist writings right away. So the danger is right through from higher mind to the emotional and all perspectives are needed and triggers can happen on all levels. Also, after “beating” my old liberal stalwarts a la Shapiro, many simply unfriended me.

        The ones who still have the wherewithal to cope with it I treat with respect and compassion because I know they are listening but they are afraid.

        • You’ll notice that I broke your material up into smaller segments. Reading online seems to limit comprehension and retention (I often have the Baron print out longer comments so I can grasp them). Thus the shorter breaks work in attracting people to reading your material – which is excellent, by the way.

          When you say people “unfriended” you I presume this was Face Book? Or Face Ache, as some call it. I have friends and family who’ve dropped/closed their accounts simply because it was so riven with p.c. attackers that it began to affect their sense of well-being.

          If you like to exchange ideas, I recommend Twitter. Yes, it’s a more limited format but the exchanges with like-minded people are fun. AFAIK, you don’t need a blog. Sometimes when my energy is low I go over there just for the practice of saying something within the character limit…images work wonderfully, though they limit the character a bit further. If you decide to open a Twitter account let me know and I’ll do a “Follow”. I never leave the #extremerightwing ghetto to look at the famous people – famous for being famous, looks like – because the ghetto is much more fun.

          You can check out our Twitter account,

          • Thanks Dymphna for your fine edit. I think I probably do need to blog. With a tail and the first subject title: South Africa. After the Hamas atrocity, the Sunday Slimes (my erstwhile employer) couldn’t bring itself to comment and left it up to the chief rabbi to defend civilization on its editorial pages. South Africa is not my great interest but I do have opinions, and detachment is good, and no I’m not a racist, and someone needs to break the ice. (Note commas for comprehension:) It’s not strategically sound to leave that up to our tiny Jewish community.

            Personally, I salivate over pieces like Daniel’s Greenfield’s recent psychological takedown of “brand left” here

            Yet I can’t help myself and so respond thus: “U want to talk about lame branding? I follow Erin brockovich because I like my air and water clean and she’s got balls. So I’ve known for some time that cities are switching from chlorine to choromine to save money and that it’s a huge problem. So now flint blows up and the republican governer can’t swallow his pride to ask for Obama’s help. And i dont care if its democrat controlled cities causing the problem, I want a man to stand up to do the right thing. He knows this plays into the hands of the democrats nationally at a critical time but he doesnt care and his pigheadedness just goes to solidify the republican reputation as mean cold jerks who want people to die. How hard is it to eat an Obama sandwich for five minutes if it serves the greater good. Eg the right’s presidential campaign. I’m going to tell you guys a secret. The left is your creation. It’s your underbelly and only when you put your ego aside and start doing the right thing more often will it start to deflate.”

            Of course I can’t know for sure whether that’s the goddess or the scapegoat in me speaking but I do have a gun and I assure you I will be the last man standing.

            (note para break…)

            I loved your crack piece on Ted Cruz. He’s right out that storybook of his. I have been pondering his smile and marvelling at the earthy possibility of one so sweet, even from a man called Rafael “Ted” Cruz.

            Thanks for the Twitter peptalk. My initial “coming out” with my friends on Facebook hasn’t gone down well. It’s a place for friends and family only and the few journos I kept around revolted in finest hypocritical style.

            Note my dear friend Lukanyo who left South Africa because he didn’t want people to think he got the editorship just because he was black and fled to Scotland where he married an albino, gave their daughters unpronounceable names and enjoys the football and daily slog at Bloomberg.

            He denounced me first, for posting an Anne-Marie Waters critique of feminism at the Guardian. Then came the sociologist from UIChicago and my old flower-power sister from the Bay (Confession, I’m American too,) where Ben Shapiro’s tactics resulted in a knockout despite the links to salon ad nauseum.

            I’ll see if I can fluff my feathers and learn to whistle, and yes a picture is worth the proverbial, and my uberfriends under the age of 30 do exemplify the virtues of brevity and go tsk-tsk…

        • welcome to our world, sally. 🙂 I’ve only been at GoV since January 2015 (Charlie Hebdo massacre), but the information here is like NOTHING I can get elsewhere, and the moral clarity is refreshing like clear, cool water. 🙂

      • I wonder if there is a way to combine emotional and logical arguments, or is that like trying to square the circle? I’m very disturbed by the fact that rational arguments based on facts sometimes fail to do the trick, and that emotional appeals often works better. Emotional arguments reaches deeper levels in us than cold rationalism, I suppose. As one who sees the search for truth as a noble undertaking, this really bothers me. I have come to the sad realization that some people simply can’t handle the truth, and would rather choose a pleasant lie.

        • In this case, an emotional appeal will work, but you have to imitate the enemy — be mild, reasonable, tolerant, etc. That’s what sways the average middle-class Westerner who is absolutely ignorant, but is likely to gravitate to the argument made by the “nicest” person. Use the emotion of niceness.

          Some of the training materials put out to field agents of the Muslim Brotherhood who are infiltrating our institutions instruct them to: “Be the nicest guy in the room.” And they are — you see it over and over again. What a bunch of really nice guys!

          May God help us all.

          • Yes, God help us.
            Thank you for your efforts on this blog.

            YOU are really a hero to us, the anti-jihadi people.

          • Thank you. Actually, all of you, our readers, are the ones who go out into the world and really make a difference.

            I’ll quote Walt Whitman again, from “Leaves of Grass”:

            I do not say these things for a dollar, or to fill up the time while I wait for a boat;
            It is you talking just as much as myself — I act as the tongue of you;
            Tied in your mouth, in mine it begins to be loosen’d.

          • Some of the training materials put out to field agents of the Muslim Brotherhood who are infiltrating our institutions

            I am sure you wouldn’t mind posting chapter and verse for this assertion…

            tks ever,


          • I can’t cite a specific reference, sorry. I heard about it from a reliable source seven years ago, but it’s been too long for me to be able to remember and pinpoint where it came from. I’m sure it must be in Steve Coughlin’s book somewhere, though (which I can’t read, unfortunately, due to my macular degeneration and hyperopia; even Kindle with large font is difficult to deal with).

      • Well Baron the emotional arguments have started again. After a week of Sky News reluctantly showing opposition in Europe to the influx of (illegal) immigrants, they have managed to find a feel good story of Syrian children drowning (again) while fleeing war-torn Turkey in a bathtub.

        Alas the bleeding hearts will wallow in their plight for they refuse to believe that anyone could or will bite the hand that feeds them.

  8. Thanks for that. I cant wait to study some maqama for myself. Like many ive always found parts of arabian and persian cultures romantic and compelling and i have a feeling that soon ill be thoroughly disabused of such notions.

    Your essay also illustrates why we need to maintain the highest standards in all our discourse everywhere in our lives. It’s not okay for is to resort to lazy generalisations and easy manipulation with others on any topic but because it’s an easy win.
    Last point, something I find tricky. In south Africa we have an organisation called Gift of the Givers, which is the largest relief organisation of African origin and of which south Africans are justifiably proud as it was among the first responders in Thailand after the Tsunami and last year in Nepal. It also innovated the world’s first fully containerised mobile hospital. Their website makes clear they serve all people, which they do, and states “we actively seek to build bridges between cultures and religions engendering goodwill, harmonious coexistence, tolerance and mutual respect in keeping with the divine injunction: “O mankind! We created you from a single pair that he may know each other (not that he may despise eachother). Verily the most righteous among you in the sight of the almighty is (he who is) the most righteous among you.” Founder imtiaz Sooliman says he established the organisation on the instruction of Sufi sheikh Muhammad Saffer Effendi al Jerrahi, a Turk, to servenhumanity and he has also been instrumental in freeing hostages from terrorists as they will negotiate with him. I dug around for Brotherhood links a few months ago and found nothing. A journalist friend who flew to Nepal with them last year obviously knows they are fantastic in the work they do and she was furious that someone denigrated the ngo just because it is Muslim. I told her I know that they are excellent but historically many good Muslims, often inadvertently spread the evils of Islam because they are genuine and open doors for their not so nice brothers, hence we see that Islam is viral and dangerous contagion is bound to happen. I suppose I could request an interview sometime myself with Sooliman and listen to his views and discuss and counter. Perhaps he’d need to come down on the reform side and it’s a usual story anyway but quite an unusual case especially with its profile here. No one knows the islamic council of S.A. brought the Hamas leader here to sign a memo of understanding with Jacob Zuma but they all know how wonderful Gift of the Givers is. Thoughts?

    • Sally I have also wondered on the true intentions of Gift of the Givers. It seems to me that by supporting local and regional problems they are able to gain a degree of credibility from the public as well as the SA Government (who have supported them financially). This way they are able to generate funding from all sources in order to support their main International appeals, Gaza, Yemen and now Syria (which conveniently are Muslim territories renowned for being hotbeds for terrorist organisations).

      The fact that they are able to make contact with Al Qaeda (in Mali), even if it is reportedly to help free hostages, makes one think.

      • Sally, I’m not familiar with “Gift of the Givers”, but most Islamic charities send help only to Muslims, even if they’re not funding terrorists, unlike most Western ones.

        About a year back, I read a blog by a Kuwaiti (!) journalist, pointing out how badly it reflected on wealthy Islamic nations that their governments were sending no practical aid to Ebola-stricken Africa, unlike Israel, just as in the Philippines and Haiti before (had he written more recently, he might have added Nepal). Sorry to get biblical, but by their fruits shall ye know them.

  9. well, of course Holocaust is red herring. It is also red hearing because Hitler did not quote New Testament to explain why he killed Jews. And if he did not quote NT (he was disdainful of Christianity, anyway) that means that his actions did not pertain to his religion, but pertained to his political/secular views .

    • But Haj Amin Al Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, visited Auschwitz and co-operated fully with the Nazi Holocaust (Wisliceny); he then went on to found Fatah and the PLO/PA now backed fully by Sweden and France.

    • Hitler also considered Islam to be preferable to Christianity. And soon after he become publicly prominent, some observers called him “another Muhammad” and the Nazis “the new Muslims.”

    • One response to the “Holocaust” red herring is to observe that many Muslims have said their only beef with Hitler is that “he didn’t finish the job.”

  10. I feel as if I have already wasted too much time on this Islam stuff if I can almost grasp the nuances in the entire post above. If someone like Muslim does not personally favor the violence and conquest mandated by Islam then he can of his own free will choose apostasy. From his choice not to do so one can conclude that he favors it, i.e., the lesser jihad.

    I just wish I could ignore all things Islam, where I need not even cross paths domestically with anyone wearing Islam-mandated distinctive dress intended to communicate hostility to all kafir who see them.

    Reading this post was nevertheless quite enjoyable, where words become art.

  11. When arguing with muhammadans, a quick way to refute their arguments is pointing to muhammedan slavery as stipulated in 4:24.

    The notion that god would send his creatures into slavery is unbearable for a person with sane intellect and mere blasphemy with regard to any god that may exist.

    Muhammedans reduce their god to an entity that engages in slavery.
    Muhammeds atrocities started latest 627 when he enslaved the Banu Quraiza in the name of god for his own “benefit”. Mr. 20% claimed i.a. Raihana as his personal property.

    Sick excuses for pagan behaviour attributed to god can be found for example here:

    The level of reasoning is such: “By introducing slavery in 4:24 slavery was ended.”

    On lower levels you also experience the argument, that Christians were also engaged in slavery. When you then explain that they did not act in accordance with religious rules, you will discover that decent discussion has ended.


    The CDHRI concludes in article 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic sharia, which is the declaration’s sole source.

    Hence, since slavery is part of the Quran and the Quran is the basis of the Sharia, muhammedan slavery will never end.

    • You will not refute a Muslim in an argument. You can’t. He will slide out from under your refutation and escape, using the exchange with you to the larger advantage of Islam. That’s the nature of this sort of troll.

      If you are very skilled in your refutation, so that there are no holes in it at all, then he will ignore it. That’s the only victory you can gain — his silence.

      • The source isn’t impeccable but it applies.

        The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The man had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

        • Yes, it seems your experience has been the same as mine.

          The important thing to remember is that they are never, repeat NEVER, arguing in good faith. They do not respect logic. They will not concede a point if it reflects negatively on Islam or Muslims. They are not even trying to refute you, or convince you. As I outlined in the post, they have other goals, not directly related to the argument itself.

        • “…your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again…”

          Perfect visual characterization of the dualism of Islam.

  12. For me, pointing out the barbarisms of Sura 5:33 and Mohammad’s slaughter of the Banu Qurayza male prisoners and the enslavement of their women and children are enough to stump the likes of Muslim. They really show their true colours when they try to defend things like crucifixion, the lopping off of heads, hands and feet and of course, slavery. No matter how they wriggle – they can’t get past the fact that their “Perfect Man” wasn’t even a nice man.

    • The type of Muslim I’ve been describing — of which “Muslim” is a prime example — won’t be stumped by anything you say.

      He is skilled in the art of deception. He already knows all your arguments. He has been well-trained. He and his tutors have been studying their enemy carefully for sixty years or more. They understand us very well, and know exactly how to use our cultural traits against us.

      We don’t have a similar, patiently-acquired understanding of the way they think. That’s why they’re running rings around us.

  13. Interesting. Ethos, pathos, logos. Reason (logos) is of course the islamists weak point, since the truth is not on his side.

    When did Rhetoric slip out of the basic western curriculum? Late 19th century with the rise of mass media? (hardly any need to parse narratives from a trusted sole source after all). Now, the rise of the internet means everyman needs basic familiarity with debating techniques to counter sophistry. Goes hand in hand with awareness of propaganda techniques.

  14. So you think you can dance the taqqiyah in the Baron’s den? 🙂 Great lesson Baron!

    Thats why a muslim can never speak to me unless i give him permission to do so…

  15. “I have been sent for naught but spreading goodness”

    That must be one of the biggest whoppers of all time.

  16. I just popped over to Amazon to look at the reviews of Reliance of the Traveller. Most of the reviews appear to be by people who, having read it, now want the whole world to read it so it knows what it’s in for if sharia prevails. I suppose I should take heart from that.

  17. Very good Baron.
    You are right, as they can seem to chase after you to cross every t and dot every i, and want more links, more info, just to drain your time and energy.

    Your tips are great, and put into black and white how I have also had to figure things.

    Another little tip for serious commentators that I have done is run a blog. You will have to be careful if you want to remain anonymous. I am finding it annoying that google want’s everything to interlink in their systems, and to share systems and accounts, besides the facebook twitter setups etc., which so far I have steered clear of.

    This where I double up (copy/paste) all my comments plus the comments I may be referring with, plus links back to that I post on other blogs. I leave this all in draft form. You only have to open this in edit and already the html is in place.
    With tags etc it means that I can find/search and get back to earlier writings on a subject, so only minor editing to customize your writing if need be, and fast out of the blocks if you see a response may be very apt timing wise.
    I also code which blog where it was placed.
    And boy do I regret when sometimes I have not saved a comment, as searches can waste a lot of time on other blogs.
    Oh and this is post will also be lifted, thank you 🙂

    I find it takes some of the mind-numbing tediousness in particular to an oft repeated point. This allows patient repeat answers with often a slight variant, and in that saved time can edit in a sense of humour, but try not to be over the top, or a touch more information.

    Where trolls used to very strongly savage me, and I steadily keep coming back with good calm facts, on subject. I have noticed it just goes to one line ad-hominen now, which I often customize their word use and calmly counter with facts.

    Also I copy other comments that strike me as being very classy, and can reword them/customize to my style of writing, or just as a revision to my learning/knowledge

    Succinctness is not my strong point, but sometimes I notice even that is being honed.

    Also now as they set traps, maybe with holding some part of information in the debate, as I do like wise, then ping.
    It is sort of a war of and about information and sources, and to keep credibility. That is where you can notate a book is also useful, and the online info also lifted to your draft part of blog, can also be notarized. That probably avoids any copy right issues., though if used in parts I always give the credit and links.
    I have noticed sometimes that some sources have gone, so it is good I made and kept a copy.

    I think of many experts, like David Woods, Mark Durie, that remain very cool, calm, collected, understanding and always polite, and of course you Baron.

    Probably others may have better tips or angles, than I have in doing this, so I look forward to any further pointers.

    This is becoming an age that is becoming very fast, with mind boggling immigration, attacks, elections, media vs blogs vs social media, educational institutions, social justice warriors, attack and counter attack, economics, politics, etc. A multitude of gathering winds and storms.

    In all this to remain true, to yourself, family, friends, neighbours, and to take time out with them, to let it go, as there is a life to be lived too, to just relax and then to be refreshed.

    Thanks to Baron and Dymphna, being fixed rocks amongst all the shifting sands around.

  18. Thank you for your sage advice. Very valuable for these times to keep our goal in mind. Masterful refutation of muslim’s argument(s). A true pleasure to read.

  19. I would not ban Muslims outright, but you are correct in banning him. Nothing I hate more than some politician who skirts questions with non answers. I do believe in freedom of speech, but I would suggest if they want to engage in this on your site, then the ground rules should be no avoiding unpleasant facts if they are asked questions that make them squirm. They resort to the same propaganda time and again without ever being challenged on the actual facts. Hilter being Christian ( he loved Nordic paganism, and admired Islam), and the Crusades not being a response or part of 1500 years of aggression and enslavement by Islam on the west are my favorites. There is some weird group think going on in the Muslim world that does not allow them to place blame on themselves for violent acts. Oh wait, I know what it is, it is called the Quran. Islam creates the perfect society for the perfect man (that’s the theory anyway). Any problems must be the result of evil outside influences, no matter how ridiculous the possible conclusions you are forced to draw to get to that answer.

    • One of the assets of Western civilization has been an exceptional capacity for cultural self-criticism, which leads to reform and improvement. The downside is that the West’s self-critiques provide ammo for assaults from cultures that are allergic to self-criticism — which Islamic culture most definitely is.

      In Islam, simply assenting to a few core doctrines makes one superior to all people who do not so assent, regardless of behavior. Thus, the sheikh of Al-Alzhar refused to question the Islamic bona fides of ISIS, while naive Westerners insist that their barbarism proves them not authentically Islamic.

      Then there’s the matter of danger to life and limb that any Muslim critic of Islamic culture is courting.

      Perhaps most deeply, there’s the Islamic notion that the failure of others to submit to the Muslim claim of rightful dominance over the whole globe is ipso fact an act of aggression against Islam. Muslims probably internalize this doctrine, and it becomes the foundation of a belief that Muslims can only ever be the innocent aggrieved party whenever their aims and wishes clash with those of non-Muslims.

      Thus, Muslims become masters of projection and deflection. Muslims, in their own minds, cannot possibly be wrongdoers against non-Muslims; they must always be accounted the victims of “mischief” (i.e. behavior that is not Islamically approved) by others. And such “mischief,” of course, includes the slightest wariness of Muslims that naturally grows from daily acts of jihad around the globe.

  20. Thank you very much Baron for an informative dissertation. I have learned much from you over the years and as with this, you never cease to be of immense value. Thanks again.

  21. So wonderfully said and well played, the problem is that many Europeans and Americans are so very angry about this awful religion and the abject surrender of our so called leaders to it, they use that very well against us.

    I love history and there is a part of me watching their strategy as it unfolds with a certain amount of admiration as a historian, they are playing it so well against what we can only define as the worst possible leaders that the West has ever had and taht is saying something…

    • It’s hard to stay calm when you know you’re being lied to and manipulated in the service of an aggressive, totalitarian, inhumane, anticivilizational agenda.

  22. Great read , thank you, gives me hope that specific verses will have to be removed or WWIII (assymetric) is inevitable . Maybe there will be a split in their beliefs, many do not want a world caliphate. Definetly the issue of our time, related events in the news constantly, always a muslim perpetrator, creating mayhem and never once did a relative or imman turn in a radicalized individual to save lives. Why not just let him post and a good christian who studies the bible post back with some very positive verses (new testament) and we can save him.

    • “gives me hope that specific verses will have to be removed”

      john, You can continue hoping and grasping. Removing verses from the Koran ain’t going to do it. The ideology is based on a rotten foundation, which is Mohammed himself. So, would expunging him give you hope? Then what would Mohammedanism be without Mohammed?

      • That’s the key question, isn’t it? Any optimistic thoughts about a humanizing “reform” of Islam must eventually come down to that.

  23. That fellow, male or female, is either an academic or a student who has imbibed the jargon that leftist and Mohammedan academics use. He is no layman. He is well practiced in the art of sophistry.

    • That was clear. I worked for >10 years as a legal secretary and learned a lot of legal ins and outs, rhetorically speaking. The comments by “Muslim” struck me as those from a criminal defense attorney who KNOWS that his client is guilty but who’s trying to do his best to avoid the logical consequences.

      (BTW, I worked for a criminal defense attorney whom I thought had exceptional integrity; not all of them seem to.)

  24. “Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    i just use the writings of the Master,George Orwell,’1984’… “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
    this book is the Blue print of Islam….they attempt to rewrite past history and have much much success,within their own ranks….they claim Ishmael is the true son of Gods inheritance and Isaac the rejected son,thus making Jews out to be capricious snakes…attempt at ‘control of history past-historical facts’…thus Abraham was a true Muslim Moses was a true Muslim,..Mary..Jesus..are True Muslims..the Land of Israel was promised to Ishmael’s decendents…thus ‘Muslims are thus in fact the true Jews’……THUS from all this they attempt to turn reality on its head,..they have controlled the narrative of history past,…their ‘citizens’ have brought into this narrative of the distorted history,…and try to control convince the kafir….in doublespeak…and doublethink……Baron you are a ‘Star’ keep up the good work…lets fight the good fight together…

  25. Don’t be surprised if “Muslim” tried to return under another name, and email address at some point in the future. I’ve encountered his type before on Forums, he’s addicted to the thrill of running rings around the kuffar. But he overplayed his hand, next time he will be more careful. “He’ll be back”.

    • Yes, I expect we’ll see him again. Or some other operative with similar training.

      But they’re not hard to spot. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

  26. Baron, most if not all of the Koranic commands to”fight” are a mistranslation. The word is almost always”qtal” in Arabic which means”kill.” It reveals yet another layer of Taqqiya. Mark Durie has an article on this somewhere.

  27. Ask them this: if it was wrong for Christian warriors to try to take the Holy Land by force, why was it NOT wrong for the Moslems to take them in the first place?

    I claim decendency from Aramaic and Ptolemaic stock, and I demand an end to the Moslem occupation of my ancestral homeland in the Middle East. Hence when our air forces bomb Moslem Arab squatters, colonists and settlers on my land, they are fighting fot MY right of return…

    ….. Crickets…..

    • Muslim is a good religion for peoples with 80-90 IQs. Or sub 80 IQ.

      It’s never really gained a foothold with Europeans with their mean IQ and the East Asians (Chinese really) have never found it appealing.

      It is spreading like wildfire in the African American population though.

  28. Next one: only the Aztec and Moslem faiths require death for apostasy. This is because they are such [ ]faiths that no person in their right mind, when faced with the inherent freedom that Christianity, Judaism or even secular humanism offer, would voluntarily choose to stay in it. Islam is the original totalitarian, fascist ideology…

    Note from ADMIN: cut it out. Too many comments to moderate for redactions anymore. Either self-police or into the trash.

  29. Next one – you DO know that Muhhamet did not write the Koran? He was illiterate, so the fact is you have NO way of proving that the Koran is the word of Allah.

  30. Or even the word of Muhammet himself…since Muhammet (the man of nust as many spellings) was totally illiterate…

  31. Reading the troll’s comments, Tariq Ramadan, the split tongued Islamic scholar, comes to mind…

  32. Magisterial, Baron! I have not been reading GoV for as long as many others, but in my opinion this is your best piece of writing.

  33. This is excellent. It occurred to me that this piece should be a primer in dealing with trolls like “Muslim”. I’ve also come across non-Muslim, leftist trolls on other conservative sites who are disingenuous in the exact same way, always starting out “politely”, pretending to be curious, feigning ignorance, and then finally become downright nasty.

    One thought here on the “inner struggle” that many Muslims ascribe to jihad. As a Christian, I am reminded of Jesus words in Matthew 11:

    “28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30

    That’s the answer to the “inner jihad.”

  34. I don’t care who wins the discussion, I care who wins the fight on the street or in the school yard.
    As for studying Islam, you don’t have to *swim* in a soup made of Ebola, AIDS and The Plague to know that it’s bad.

    • This fight is not being fought in the street or the school yard. The primary battle we face is the information war, and the most important front is right here on the Internet.

      And we are losing that war. Badly.

      The reason we are losing it is that the vast majority of Westerners, even those who know we are engaged in a civilizational struggle, do not understand the nature of the war we’re fighting. The kinetic war — mainly terrorist attacks at this point, although the Groping Jihad is also part of it — is still a minor front. It is designed to induce terror in the infidel and demoralize him, making him reluctant to oppose Islam.

      The main part of the war is being fought with disinformation, lies, and propaganda. It is designed to divide us one from another, confuse us, divert us, and weaken our will to oppose Islam — dovetailing nicely with the kinetic war.

      When we are sufficiently weak and demoralized, and the Muslims have sufficient numbers relative to ours (the “birth jihad”), then the kinetic war will predominate. There will be a final push, with blood in the streets throughout the West until Islam is eventually supreme. That is the plan, as laid out well in advance by the Muslim Brotherhood and others.

      If you do not understand the nature of this information war, you will lose it. Not you personally, but the larger culture of which you are a part. Islam is winning it handily at the moment, and will continue to do so until a larger number of Westerners start to get their minds around what is happening.

      By the time the kinetic phase gets here — the school yard and the street, when you can fight your preferred battle and use the skills you prefer to use — it will be too late. For all intents and purposes the war will be over at that point; the kinetic phase is just a mopping-up operation. Islam will have won.

      • Agreed that the information war is the key one. Imo We’re losing it because of a certain word beginning with R. People want to avoid being accused of having anything to do with that word – hence they’ll stay silent about a mass invasion by a hostile horde, while jumping like hyenas on anyone saying anything un-PC, like Donald Trump or Nigel Farage…

        And if the Hijra continues, and the number of enrichers (and their weapons) continues to skyrocket, at some point it will be too late… the indigenous Europeans will have about as much chance as the Egyptian Copts, the Ottoman Armenians or the Lebanese Christians.

        • There is another R word that is a problem. Religion. Since the Peace of Westphalia, it’s been (mostly) accepted by Europeans that waging war on someone because of their religion is counterproductive. As long as people perceive Muslims as practitioners of a religion, and fail to see them (many, most?) as practitioners of an ideology of conquest, we are bound to lose.

      • You are absolutely correct, Baron. I’m seeing this in our schools, as young, impressionable minds are deftly guided into liberal thinking under the guise of multiculturalism. Already future generations are accepting the hijab as the latest fashion craze while portions of Koranic thought are used as teaching tools in the lower grades. It’s starting to come together now. And it’s hideous.

        • Look, London is on the cusp of an Islamic mayorship.

          It’s already happened in the streets.

          • Yep. And the mayor-in-waiting has I believe 4 brothers involved with Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and as a lawyer defended Muslim terror suspects – but now he’s being real smooth, and pally with the Rabbis down at the Synagogue – so everything’s OK? Or is this another Tarik Ramadan, but this time one likely to have a multi-billion pund budget and Europe’s biggest city at hi disposal?

      • It’s democide really.

        As far as the meta goes yeah sure memes are good. Our surviving ancestors can look at the niceties and protocols and admire our restraint.

      • “If you do not understand the nature of this information war, you will lose it. Not you personally, but the larger culture of which you are a part. Islam is winning it handily at the moment, and will continue to do so until a larger number of Westerners start to get their minds around what is happening.”

        And, unfortunately, Americans (and probably Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders) have a built in “escapism” element. If things are not good where you are, you just move elsewhere ’cause there’s plenty of other places….

        “Go west, young man….” And, if the frontier is gone, a house in suburbia will do.

        A friend of mine will not organize his three adult kids or assorted brothers and sisters to study about such things because they own this remote patch of ground down state and they all have guns…. (…But, admittedly, food might be a concern.)

        You can go 200 miles or more west of the Appalachians and everyone knows there are places to hide back in them thar hills. Now, don’t bother them ’cause there’s a play-off game on the television.

      • Exactly.
        I am trying to pass along your excellent guidance and advice as far and wide as I can. I fear the time is much shorter than the majority realize.

      • The kinetic phase is here.
        Moroccan gangs dominate many Dutch schools, Albanian gangs dominate many Swiss schools, Turkish gangs dominate many German schools, you can imagine what happens to the native Dutch, Swiss, German students.
        Cologne not kinetic enough?
        How about Malmö?
        Or Göteborg.
        Paris and many other larger French cities have been pretty kinetic since the 1980’s.
        Harassment, bullying and physical attacks are happening all over the place, every day.
        Information wars are part of it, but if Kirsten or Solveig end up in bed with Ibrahim or Mehmed, while Q’wesi and Abdullah stab you to death, it doesn’t matter who won the debate.

        • It’s not about winning the debate, it’s about not getting mired in it.

          We need the strong guys, but we need the explainers, too. Some few – Matt Bracken – can do both. But that’s a rare mix.

          There’s a scene in Tommy’s book where he’s in prison with some Luton guys who’ve “converted”. Tommy made a point to study the Koran so he could know the enemy. Thus, when this “bloke” was jaw-jawing (my term) about Islam, Tommy interrupted him and said (paraphrase): “So you know your Nan’s in hell, don’t you? She raised you, was good to you, but she’s in hell because she was an infidel”. At that point, the other fellow was left speechless…the things they conveniently forgot to tell him when they converted him.

          We need both brawn and brain.

        • I disagree. The kinetic phase is not here, not yet. We’re still in the softening-up phase.

          You can tell the kinetic war hasn’t started yet because so many people in Europe aren’t aware even now that there’s a war on. When they can’t live in denial any longer — when car bombs explode almost daily in the shopping district near their home, when several of their female relatives have been gang-raped, when an asylum center full of muggers and rapists opens up just down the street — that’s when you’ll know the kinetic phase is well underway.

          That phase is coming up soon, at least in Europe. Bracken has described it very effectively. The Muslims will initiate it when they conclude that (1) they have the numbers to gain the final victory, and (2) the enemy no longer has the will to resist.

          It’s in the Al Qaeda timeline, and The Project, too, if I recall correctly. The final wave of jihad is not to be launched until the Muslims are certain of victory. Initiating jihad when victory is not assured is considered a grave sin in Islam.

          They will start the kinetic phase when they’re sure we won’t resist. Will we fight them then? I’m not sure.

      • Dear Baron, and others,

        I have come across that character on a number of sites, should I find him (more likely: them) again, I will direct other participants to this link/your present article.

        Thank you for this excellent article, and the useful in formation contained therein. I am for quite a while of the opinion that we should learn to argue calmly and convincingly, later more about that. Insert for other readers: Check on

        Further, I agree that we are waging an information war. This has one disadvantage, namely the short information span of the general populace. I do not say that we should not fight an information war, but *also* a propaganda war. By that I mean very brief, concise and truthful information, once the ‘newcomer’ is interested, he or she can be directed.

        May I point out here that Gates of Vienna, Dr. Warner, Citizen Warrior and Middle East Forum are the only sites I am sending ‘newcomers’ too. Whenever I get people interested in the subject, say chatting in a pub, after gently deriding terms such as ‘Islamophobe’, I mention websites of interest. More often than not I found that people already looked, hit ‘jihad watch’ – and recoil. The articles there are excellent, but interested people are simply put-off by readers comments; i.e. “… nuke Mecca … kill ’em all … etc.” So, when I am directing people, it’s usually to yours and the other three sites, and give warning about some readers replies. I point out that people are often angry, due to their helplessness, it’s like screaming at the TV, etc., preparing them for some responses they’d find normally unpalatable.

        Information and propaganda war I myself practise as follows, your website, Gates of Vienna, and Dr. Warner’s “1,400 years history” depends on what kind of people I converse with. Pointing out that there is much scholarly and lengthy information, but that it is thorough and helpful to understand (I am talking to newbees), and more such qualifiers. Adding that they should have some biscuits and coffee along when visiting these sites. That is to say I am preparing them that they will need time to get and digest the information provided. Less thoughtful individuals get a short propaganda shot. See I call this: ‘Islam in 16 seconds’, or: ‘North African settlers in England’. It gets people to scream at their screens. (I carry sheets of paper, handwritten with these websites, always claiming that they were meant for somebody else. ‘Not good telling them that they are the actual target audience, picked per chance…)

        May I also point out, mainly to other readers, that it is helpful when speaking, or writing, to refer to the ‘refugees’ as Muhajiroun. Then mention that this means, loosely translated, ‘under cover Mujahideen’. Accuracy and lengthy explanation are not required in the early phase. What also I found to be helpful is to add to the term ‘refugee’ the words “… actually, they are settlers, colonists…” The visible reaction in their faces is remarkable.

        There’s more. Namely the idea of taking the fight to them. We have the better propaganda means and arguments, spiritually as well as secular. Their women are a prime target, suffragettes for instance. “We Westerners too had to struggle and suffer, voting rights … that is providing inspiration, trigger moments for rebellion.” Brigitte Gabriel could be helpful, talking to Muslim women. So could be Sabatina James.

        Apart from the ladies, a good portion of the Muslim population in general makes a good target. Short arguments to lead the Koran ad absurdum, I have prepared a two page and an other four page document, one or two more to follow. Not too much, it’s to get the process going, to cause trigger moments. Sedition if you so wish. But these should be available in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu. Raymond and Brother Rachid spring to mind. I believe that Robert Spencer speaks Arabic, don’t know about Daniel Pipes. I really believe we have to get that rolling, taking the fight into their homes, into their hearts and minds. And thus into their society, into Islam itself. Think about it, they don’t like it that we educate our Western people about them, but educating their people… Also, we have to go more international, currently mainly English speakers are addressed, but Spanish, French and Germans are also important. Quite a large audience to get on board, and to spread the word. You have, obviously, my mail address. I will gladly forward what I produced so far, and additional thoughts, for your perusal and comments. Think about it please, I believe that would be useful for our cause.

        Kind regards

        PS: Before I forget it; Delando Islam!

    • We need to fight the information war. It is not an option. In the long run it is more important than physical fights. Physical fights only bring short-term victory. Think Iraq. America dominated and overthrew the government, but failed to keep the peace. Even the tyrant, in order to maintain power over the subjugated, must use information for control. In his case, he operates in the area of emotion manipulation; he uses information to generate fear and to force obedience. Propaganda and brainwashing are his tools. It is information warfare. So, even the tyrant, who without hesistation will use physical violence when needed, knows information warfare must be applied to maintain dominion.

  35. My hat is off to you, Baron ….
    your level of knowledge, experience,
    and your mastery of language warfare
    is to be commended, highly.
    I am grateful that we have such a caliber
    “intellectual warriors” as yourself.

  36. Getting the upper hand in the information war depends on a few very intelligent and well informed ‘internet warriors’. There is very little, if any, moral support from the intelligentsia in Western societies. The masses on the road to dhimmitude, are not even conscious of their plight.

    It’s difficult not to despair.

    • I am hoping to put up a few excerpts of Tommy’s book that address this issue. They may lessen your despair. I have to type them out so it takes a while. I’m going to ask for a pdf of the book so I can excerpt, perhaps on a daily basis, from his book. It is definitely in Tommy’s “voice”…too bad the upper class donkeys with their blinders on cannot see his incredible worth.

      • Dymphna – This might spare you having to re-type passages, and aid your task : if you have (or get) the Kindle version of Tommy’s book you can _highlight_ fairly long passages.

        When one highlights passages in a Kindle book, the passages are stored in your account at Amazon.

        Then, (make sure you sync & update), go to (note that; NOT the main Amazon site) and log in to your account.

        You will see in the menu options at the top “Your highlights.”

        There you will find the actual text of all the highlights you have made in all the books you have on your Kindle.

        Then it’s a much more simple copy and paste job !

        This works great for shorter passages. I’ve found that longer passages lose their formatting somewhat (line breaks, paragraph breaks), so some editing and proofreading may still be necessary, but you might find this to be a useful, short-term work-around.

        I was mightily impressed by Tommy’s book, and think he is a real modern-day hero, salt of the earth type, best of the British best. I marvel at his courage and fortitude.

        At the same time, it was thoroughly depressing to see how low the British police have sunk. I couldn’t decide … did they remind me more of the brutality of the Soviet KGB, or of the efficiency of the GDR’s STASI.

        • I have been using the paperback someone sent us. But I will try your method. In fact, I’m VERY pleased to have the information… Our son has sent us the first draft of a long history novel and I’ve been reading it on my Kindle but making notes by hand. THIS is much easier. I hope it works equally well with old Kindles. Mine is the small black one, no touch screen, etc.

          • Glad to be of help.

            Mine is also an older model … dark slate grey, with keyboard … but it seems to work fine for me. Haven’t used the feature a lot lately, but I’m sure with practice and regular use it could be a Godsend.

            What’s the subject of your son’s historical novel? History is my first love. My (incomplete) MA thesis was (is?) on the immigration of East European Volksdeutsche into Canada 1946-56. Poles and Russians of German ancestry were, by their citizenship, our allies during the War, but their ethnicity and language got them classified as enemy aliens, and ineligible for UNHCR assistance. It took Western Canadian Mennonites and Lutherans lobbying the Canadian government, under the banner of the CCCRR (Canadian Christian Council for the Resettlement of Refugees), to get the Canadian gov’t to ease restrictions.

    • In one sense this attitude is a perfect example of over confidence in both cultural and racial superiority.

      As long as these New-Europeans and New-Americans ascribe to economic theories ranging from Milton Freidman to Maynard Keynes…they can derancinate your people and carry off your daughters and slaughter your sons.

      This is literally the Liberal consensus.

    • Where I am in the Midlands, a lot of my friends and colleagues, in the late 20s to 30s age group, seem to be aware. They may not say it straight, but the reaction when you discuss something like “Tower Hamlets” suggests that they know what it signifies. And very few are supportive of the Hijra…

      Meanwhile, among friends in my other homeland, Poland, the conversation very quickly veers towards the subject of “cultural enrichment” – and a lot of memes they post on Facebook concern what happened in Cologne. The feeling there is almost uniform – according to recent polls, 95% of Poles are against accepting “refugees”.

  37. “Enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart’s dream into a reality.”

    Liddell Hart’s dream ‘to subdue the enemy without fighting’

    Liddell Hart wrote a history of both first and second world wars, he was the first author to question the integrity of the WW1 ‘butchery bill’ generals, criticizing Haig in the first and Mongomery in the second, both at times when the consensus was that they were war heros.

  38. What if we publish thousands of fake, counterfeit Qurans with all the bad Medina stuff stripped out? Make it otherwise identical. Float it all over the world.

    Muslims would go ballistic but they would find it very difficult to critisize the omission of the Medina verses added after abrogation. The final bogus Quran would be identical to the summary of the lies the apologists are giving us. They would be forced to like it. How could anything go wrong? ?

  39. This dipiction of the Islamic troll is so accurate that “Muslim” infuriates me without my having read his comments.

    I no longer spend much time on this type. Instead I point out that while I could hold forth on the Koran, hadith, and sira, and have Reliance of the Traveler on a shelf, there is no need for me to talk about such intellectual matters. The fact is that Muslim status is a whopping risk factor for terrorism and all kinds of social problems, including killing gay people and raping women. It’s crazy to import people who are (conservatively) 5000% more likely to engage in terrorism. End of discussion.

  40. It is easy to feel despair. I worry about my children’s and grandchildren’s future, just as I did after 9/11 — but. . . But what? That is where I stall. What should I do? What is the most important thing to do?

    It seems to me that only an idiot would convert to a backward religion like Islam, and yet they do. What is the draw? Why do they do this?

    I vote for freedom of religion and freedom from religion for all who want it. And now I have to go cook supper.

    Baron and Dymphna, thank you for being who you are and for fighting the good fight!

    I say up Western Civilization and down with backward savages.

    Thank you for all you all do.

    • Despair, yes. And what can we do? I live in Northern California, and post to my friends on Facebook whom I know to mostly ignore the information I am trying to provide – not sure how many have “unfriended” me. My own son who attended Catholic high school thinks I am a racist because of my concerns about Islam. I think voting for Donald Trump is a step in the right direction, and his election may provide a ray of hope, not that he would carry California even if he got the nomination. Many thanks to Baron and Dymphna!

        • Well, that was weird. The “Islam delenda est” comment was meant for someone a few comments earlier on the thread! 🙂

          But, @ croy, I live in the S.F. Bay Area, so there are at least TWO of us! 🙂

  41. I am very familiar with “Muslim’s” tactics because they are virtually the same as the anti-Semetic trolls who haunt the Internet. I’ve learned from battle with them that no set of facts is sufficient for them and they believe wholeheartedly in conspiracy theories, and yes, when presented with irrefutable facts, they do not respond, deliberately. I no longer waste my time on them because in the end, our civilization does not depend on me disabusing them of their views, which isn’t going to happen anyway. Our civilization does depend, however, on spreading the real truth about Islam.

    I find it odd that someone like “Muslim” would even bother with a site like GoV. The mission of the blog is well-known, and Muslim isn’t about to convince anyone here. The real danger of a person like him is done on more mainstream websites, where there are many people who may be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The real information battle takes place on the mainstream sites. I encourage people to wage their battles there, as well as in person with family, friends, co-workers.

    • He doesn’t have to convince anyone of anything. All he has to do is leave an undecided person with enough doubt about who is the nice guy, and who is the meanie, so that the fence-sitter keeps right on sitting on the fence that much longer.

      If 100,000 more ordinary people were to understand the danger we face and decide to militantly resist it, that would be a significant accomplishment. Muslim’s job is to help prevent that from happening.

  42. I wish more people would just read 1984 by Orwell and realize that the things going on in the book do happen in reality.

    • I agree. The book should be a must read. Orwell was a genius in the way he was able to imagine and put into words some of the darkest tendencies of man. And we are living it right now. The book is so prescient. It portrays a totalitarian world. Orwell may not have been familiar with Islam, but he didn’t really need to be aware of it. He was familiar with communist totalitarianism. It just so happens that Islam is another brand; so it applies as well.

  43. I see what you’re saying, Baron, and on a more mainstream website, you’d be right. On this site, well, we are pretty much to a person all aware. He will not be making any inroads here. I understand the hyper-vigilance, though.

    Still, thank you for the heads up on the taqiyya troll. Awareness of this and people like him only hones our game. Again, I encourage people to take the battle to the mainstream sites. For the most part here, we are just preaching to the choir.

    • That’s not entirely true. I have had a fair number of people email me to thank me and say, “Your site really opened my eyes.”

      You may not realize that there are people like that here, because they don’t comment. But it does happen.

      • I guess I just don’t realize how many people, the sheer number, who are behind the ball on this. I always think of GoV as “advanced” on the counterjihad road. Once you understand in a general sense that islam is far from being the “religion of peace”, you seek out sites that inform, sometimes at the basic level, sometimes not. Gates of Vienna was not my entrée to the counterjihad. It is more “PhD”-level in this battle. But that is my mistake, for there is no rhyme or reason to the Internet and the way things are sometimes just stumbled upon.

        • Yes, exactly. And we have a high search engine ranking on certain words and phrases, so people stumble on us when something in the news prompts them to search.

        • GoV was and IS my only CJ site. I found the site in January 2015, when a commenter called “GoV” (clever, huh?) commented on the Washington Post boards about how the Charlie Hebdo attack was absolutely, down-the-line, Islamic terrorism and (probably) only the start of Something Much Bigger.

          Thus, commenting on mainstream boards brings in those of us eager for more.

          • That was I, Cynthia. Sometimes I wander off the reservation when I could be here putting up a post. But often it’s an energy thing: on WaPo and other boards, I don’t have to cite sources. If I’d put up a post about it here – well, I’d just be doing a repeat most likely. And I’d have to find the proper links. On those boards, it’s obvious people just make stuff up.

            Anyway, was I sadly right about Charlie Hebdo being the start of Something Much Bigger? Do you think they’re done yet? Those terrorists run to their holes in Belgium. Here’s a WSJ report from 2014


            Some good comments there, too:

            Every time there is a atrocity committed by a muslim radical a politician that supported allowing more immigration of those cult members should be publicly hung. I guarantee that would stem the flow of these terrorists.


            As I’ve been saying since 9/11. Defense is an immigration and visa problem, not a military one. None of these countries will be sending missiles and bombers to our mainland, or even Europe. And when they do or threaten us when they have the technology we simply annihilate them. And I don’t see any of them having the technology within the century. Unless of course we keep eroding our economy by our ineffective wars.

            Tom, again:

            And who with a ounce of brains in their head didn’t see this coming at least 10 years ago? Of course the community organizer didn’t see this as he went on his world apology tour like a 8 year old apologizing for taking candy. This time in history with the beginning of the 21st century will go down as the time the most corrupt, racist, incompetent, and stupid administration ever put the world in jeopardy.

            Yes, there are dissenters. WSJ aint the fortress it used to be.

      • Oh, yes … it does happen. I have been ‘lurking’ on GoV for over 4 years, but have never commented. The last 6 months I check in daily, and read all new posts. I have learned enormously. So I will, belatedly, say a heartfelt “Thank you, Baron.”

        Never underestimate the reach of GoV.

  44. An excellent essay and one that I will save and pass forward. The information was top-notch. I have had problems on another site with a Moslem that has infiltrated the comments section. Thank you for clearly laying out the depth of the problem and how to construct counter arguments, when possible, or perhaps to refuse to engage them as well. Certainly I have chosen to not engage as it does seem pointless and now I understand why. The issue of flattery and being the nicest person in the room comes through clearly enough. I was never interested in islam in the past. I am not interested in it now except for how it threatens western civilization. Perhaps I can hone my responses, in the future, as I am dedicated to protecting western values and western civilization. May God have mercy on us and protect us from this evil.

  45. Dear Baron:

    Many thanks for all you do. I follow GOV off and on but this is the first time I’ve commented.

    Muslim is a malignant narcissist; he shows all the rhetorical tricks that malignant narcissists use. And it’s true, the most you will ever get is silence and a change in subject. You will never get acknowledgement of any wrongdoing, admission of guilt or lies, or any responsibility for his actions. They are, as M Scott Peck observed “People of the Lie” and based on his analysis , the main characteristics are:
    1. refusal to acknowledge sin
    2. self-image of perfection
    3. excessive intolerance of criticism
    4. scapegoating
    5. disguise and pretence (being the nicest guy in the room)
    6. intellectual deviousness
    7. greed
    8. coercion and control of others
    9. lack of empathy
    10. symbiotic relationship
    11. runs in families (or in ideologies??)
    and most importantly
    12. unsubmitted will (all adults submit themselves to something greater than themselves, either a true God, truth, love, Pagan Rome(??) etc…but IMHO muslims submit themselves to a false god Allah, which is in fact, themselves)

    You can only contain malignant narcissists, you cannot change them. I know, my mother is one. And I believe limited or no contact is the best strategy.

    • In my opinion, Islam is an entire malignant narcissistic “religion”. Any Muslim who is not already a malignant narcissist becomes one by closely following the strictures of his faith.

  46. G-d gave mankind free will to choose between good and evil. Islam takes that away. Unfortunately all Islam has left is the evil and depraved.

  47. I agree that Islam is an entirely malignant narcissistic “religion” but I also think that perhaps many people can’t grasp the concept of Islam as evil because we don’t talk about free will or disorders of the will.

    “Disorders of the Will”, a term commonly used in the 1800s would have readily explained Muslim behaviour and thinking but has not been used much since Freud. Therefore, the concept that evil is often chosen willfully is foreign to us; we are just the product of our genes and our environment.

    Modern psychiatry and psychology is to blame IMHO; they are the priests of our secular world.
    Also see Theodore Dalrymple “Admiral Evasions: how psychology undermines morality”

Comments are closed.