Peter Townsend Debate: Is Beating Women Permitted in Islam?

Is Beating Women Permitted In Islam?

Rebuttal #2: Peter Townsend Debate Contents DEBATE RECAP LINKS .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.

Links to Pre-Debate Posts: ................................................................................................................ 2

2.

Links to Debate Posts: ....................................................................................................................... 2

I.

Uh…WHERE is Your Rebuttal?............................................................................................................... 3

II.

Whoops – It Looks Like You Just Conceded Round #1 AND Round #2 ................................................. 3

III.

The Quran is Declared Irrelevant in Debating Your “Personal Islam” .............................................. 4

IV.

Your Irrational Emotional Projections, Assumptions & Contortions ................................................ 5

V.

Your Rebuttal Approach Debunked ...................................................................................................... 6

VI.

Your Jerome vs. Valla Case Study...................................................................................................... 8

VII.

Your Hilarious Denial of Fallacies ...................................................................................................... 9

VIII.

Your “Misogynistic Environment” Red Herring / Goalpost Fallacies .............................................. 10

1.

Quran 2:223: Are Wives Just Sex Objects for “Whenever” a Husband Wants Sex? ...................... 11

2.

Quran 2:282: Is a Woman’s Testimony Equal to Only Half a Man’s? ............................................ 12

3.

Quran 4:43: Are Women Inherently Impure? ................................................................................ 16

4.

Quran 4:3: Is Polygyny a Right or a Restricted Permission? .......................................................... 16

5.

Quran 78:31-33: Voluptuous Breasted Women in Heaven? ......................................................... 16

6.

Is “Sexual Slavery” Allowed per Quran 4:24, Muslim 3371, Bukhari 176:2229, etc.? .................... 17

7.

Your Hypocritical Appeal to Hadiths: Having Your Hate Cake and Eating It Too ........................... 18

8.

Bukhari 7:62:33: Women Are a Great “Trial” for Men .................................................................. 19

9.

Bukhari 54:460: Unilateral and Unconditional Sex Rights for Men? ............................................. 19

10.

Bukhari 1:6:301: The Misogyny Kitchen Sink Hadith that Islamophobes Love........................... 19

IX.

Your Fiqh Fixation and Cherrypicked Medieval & Middle East Mullahs ......................................... 23

X.

My “Creeping Sharia Threat” Challenge to Fear Mongers like You .................................................... 26

XI.

More “Personal Islam” Smears and Your Pathetic Fact-Averse Rebuttal ....................................... 27

1.

The Debunked Sira Incident that You Embarrassingly Cite and Get All Wrong .............................. 27

2.

The One and Only Debate Fact That You Rebut – and AGAIN Get All Wrong ................................ 28

XII.

The Ad hominem Fallacy of “Agenda-Driven Reinterpretations” ................................................... 31

XIII.

Your Fanatical Ad Populum Appeals and Other Bizarre Fallacies ................................................... 35

XIV.

Voting on Our Debate ..................................................................................................................... 38

DRAFT: Not for Publication XV.

Conclusion: It’s Time for You to Concede ...................................................................................... 40

DEBATE RECAP LINKS Here is a recap of the debate-related posts to date:

1. Links to Pre-Debate Posts: Peter #1A: https://twitter.com/PeterTownsend7/status/548636158041669632 Peter #1B: https://twitter.com/PeterTownsend7/status/548637383235612675 My Reply #1: https://twitter.com/Chameleon_X_/status/548993075251777536 Peter #2: https://twitter.com/PeterTownsend7/status/549096688321695744 My Reply #2: https://twitter.com/Chameleon_X_/status/549352465288933377 Peter #3: https://twitter.com/PeterTownsend7/status/549453467987611648 My Reply #3: https://twitter.com/Chameleon_X_/status/549602724908908544 Peter #4: https://twitter.com/PeterTownsend7/status/549764386164707328 My Reply #4: https://twitter.com/Chameleon_X_/status/549806920631345154

2. Links to Debate Posts: Peter #1 Opening Arguments: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ab17cimyz48lvkx/Quran%20434.pdf?dl=0 My Reply #1 Cover Letter: https://twitter.com/Chameleon_X_/status/549824210903007232 My Reply #1: http://issuu.com/islamophobiadebunked/docs/is_beating_women_permitted_in_islam/0 Peter Reply #2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtspu5pwm05mwte/Is%20the%20Beating%20Women%20Allowe d%20in%20Islam%20-%20Peter%20Townsend.pdf?dl=0 My Reply #2: See Below

2 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication Dear Peter, Your debate arguments and rebuttals are among the most embarrassing that I have ever seen. Now it is my sincere pleasure to explain why, while at the same time dismantling your entire pathetic rebuttal.

I.

Uh…WHERE is Your Rebuttal?

This may sound like a facetious question, but it’s not. Do you realize that, in all of your many pages of debate response, you did not quote my arguments even once? Just take a step back and drink that embarrassing fact in: NOT ONCE. And you call what you wrote a “rebuttal”? Now compare that to my rebuttals, where I quote and rebut both your arguments and the relevant facts in great detail, in spite of the fact that essentially all of your arguments are nothing but logical fallacies deflecting from my crushing arguments.

Even at this late stage, you seem to be having immense trouble simply getting your head around the debate topic, “Is Beating Women Permitted in Islam?” You are STILL desperately attempting to move the goalposts to your pet “Mecca-in-motion” conspiracy theory touted by the coach of the Sparklemotion soccer team, Dan Gibson. And since you know that won’t work, you now desperately try a less ambitious moving of the goalposts to a nearby hay field (rather than Petra, Jordan). So instead of addressing the actual debate topic at hand, you embarrassingly “beat up” your straw man fallacies as convenient substitutes. In effect, your debate topics have absurdly switched to, “Is Beating Women Permitted in the History of Shafi’i Fiqh?" and, even worse, "Is Beating Women Permitted by Some Muslims?” And then on top of all that, you desperately try to redefine “Islam” by writing off the Quran as effectively irrelevant to the definition of Islam!

Not only is your dismissal of the Quran intellectually dishonest, it is hysterically funny considering that the motivating cause of domestic violence and the central and titular point of the debate per YOUR initial debate post was verse 4:34 of the Quran, i.e., “Qur’an 4:34: Carte Blanche for Wife Beaters”: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ab17cimyz48lvkx/Quran%20434.pdf?dl=0 Amazingly, contrary to your titular focus, you failed to provide any analysis whatsoever of what the true message of verse 4:34 actually states. Moreover, you did not address one iota of my extensive, in depth analysis to prove what the message of this verse and related verses actually conveys based on hard facts and rigorous logic using ALL available facts. What more evidence is there of your flagrant intellectual dishonesty, which, quite ironically, you project upon me? Well, actually a lot – but more on that later.

II.

Whoops – It Looks Like You Just Conceded Round #1 AND Round #2

But before moving on, we should remind the readers how you have essentially conceded to ALL of my crushing rebuttals in Round #1 of the debate against your document linked above. You have not counter-rebutted even a single one of my refutations, which are in this Round #1 rebuttal document (in addition to my book as my opening Round #1 arguments): https://twitter.com/Chameleon_X_/status/549824210903007232 3 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication You are so embarrassed by this initial posting of yours that you effectively tried to write it entirely out of the voting process for our debate, per your proposed debate vote wording here (note how you only link to your Round #2 document!): https://twitter.com/PeterTownsend7/status/558549609694248960 Given your obsessive denial of logical fallacies and your irrational annoyance at me pointing them out for everyone to see, I will now be highlighting them in bold. Logical fallacies and misrepresentations of my position are essentially all that you have accomplished in this Round #2 document, as I predicted before you even posted your rebuttal.

Let me elaborate a bit more on this critical debate fact once again so that it sinks in as much as possible.

I already stated that you failed to quote my arguments even once. However, do you also realize that in your entire 27 page document that you have completely ignored all of my arguments in my book? Yes, ALL. You have only cited ONE hadith and vaguely alluded to ONE Sira quote that I cited and analyzed in detail. But you completely ignored all of my arguments even on those two measly facts. There is also NOT ONE relevant fact that you have cited from the Quran, hadiths or Sira on this topic that I have not cited and analyzed in detail in my book. By contrast, other than regurgitating Yusuf Ali’s error-riddled translation of verse 4:34 from your initial debate post and citing that ONE hadith, you have not cited any other facts whatsoever from the Quran, hadiths or Sira in this round. And as for an analysis of even those two measly facts, you have produced absolutely nothing. Your willful ignorance with respect to both the facts and logic on this topic is simply stunning.

III.

The Quran is Declared Irrelevant in Debating Your “Personal Islam”

Now let’s start dissecting your sheer and utter nonsense, starting with this quote: Chameleon claims to clear this threshold by engaging in a very technical and detailed analysis of the Arabic text of Qur’an 4:34. I will argue that this analysis is of tertiary importance when it comes to discussing the question ‘Is the beating of women permitted in Islam?’ This claim must come as quite a surprise to those thinking of Islam primarily as a religion based on the teachings of the Qur’an but I will argue that there can be a world of difference between ‘This is what the Qur’an teaches’ and ‘This is what Islam teaches’. (p. 1-2) I made the claim that the actual meaning of Qur’an 4:34 is only of tertiary importance when it comes to the question of whether Islam teaches the permissibility of wife beating. (p.9) I do not accept the authority of the Qur’an and, in fact, believe it to be a mixture of pre-Islamic materials, personal aggrandisement by the Islamic ‘prophet’ Muhammad and later Muslim back projection. It is, furthermore, riddled with contradictions and scientific errors. I also reject the 200 year ex-post facto Muslim oral tradition (as found in the hadiths and ‘biographies of Muhammad’) that forms the basis of Muslim historiography as later inventions. (p. 2) I love that last paragraph, where you ironically assert your own “personal Islam” as being relevant by rejecting all the primary sources. How convenient indeed, and how embarrassing is your projection of that “personal Islam” onto me! Of course, the notion that you can't find out what Islam teaches by referring to the Quran is absurd. The Quran is the ONLY source that Muslims of different sectarian 4 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication affiliation (and no sectarian affiliation) consider authoritative. The Shia don't accept the Sunni hadiths as authoritative, and the Sunnis don't accept the Shia hadiths as authoritative. And non-sectarian Muslims reject the authority of both hadith collections. The situation is the same with each sect’s biographies and commentaries. Yet, your only argument – and a feeble one at that, per below – is based on these secondary and tertiary sources. And when you do occasionally reference a primary source quote, the result is ridiculous, as I showed in your initial debate post when you tried embarrassingly to cite and analyze the Quran. No wonder you completely avoided this approach in Round #2.

But what is even worse is your laughable invocation of an equivocation fallacy, whereby somehow “Islam” can be defined independently of the Quran, or worse that this newly defined “Islam” can contradict the Quran entirely! You claim this in your quote above, and you claim it again here: When dealing with a legal system like this the obvious question will obviously be as to which of these sources carry the highest level of authority. In the case of Islamic law the obvious answer must supposedly be the Qur’an. This is, as we shall see, not necessarily the case however. There are several examples of Islamic legal rulings where these rulings actually contradict the Qur’an. (p. 14) Once again, the Quran is the ONLY source that Muslims of different sectarian affiliation (and no sectarian affiliation) consider authoritative. Essentially all Muslims agree that it is the highest authority in Islam above any man or historical record, since it is considered the only source directly from God. It is also the ONLY Scripture and source of Law per the Quran itself: Shall I seek other than God as a source of Law (in Islam), when He revealed THIS BOOK [Quran] fully detailed? The word of your Lord is COMPLETE in truth & justice. (Quran 6:114-115) So for you to completely ignore my entire exegetical analysis on what the Quran actually says and means in verse 4:34 – the core doctrine in contention from the Quran, as you originally noted – is the height of embarrassing willful ignorance. I am actually laughing at you, Peter. You are running around completely naked, acting like you have actually engaged in this debate topic when you haven’t at all.

Yes, it is THAT bad.

IV.

Your Irrational Emotional Projections, Assumptions & Contortions

What makes your claims even more embarrassing is that you try to project your emotional arguments onto me when I am the only one who has rigorously addressed ALL available and relevant facts on this topic. By contrast, you have rebutted NONE of my arguments. You try to portray me as the subjective “insider” and you as the objective “outsider”, which could not be more ironic. For example, here is one quote: For the ‘insider’ the answer [to what Islam teaches] will, in many ways, be more nuanced as it will be based on his or her lived experience of the faith, relationships with fellow believers and personal spirituality. (p. 2) This implied attribution to me is hilarious. Where did I bring in ANY of my “lived experience of the faith, relationships”, etc. as relevant facts in my arguments? As I emphasized in my Introduction, such personal references are exactly what I avoid to prevent false and unsubstantiated ad hominem fallacy 5 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication accusations by people like you. You seem convinced that you know me, yet you don’t even know my gender, let alone any of these subjective “personal experiences” that you talk about. To prove my point, how did you come to the conclusion that I am “Mr. Chameleon” again? Please share your touted objective data about my gender with us. We’d love to hear it.

You also state in a p. 2 footnote, like many Islamophobes, that “questioning a belief system is not the same thing as hating people”. Of course, I 100% agree with you! However, this is yet another straw man fallacy. It’s not the “questions” that are ever the problem, but rather the bold-faced CLAIMS against Islam in contradiction of facts and logic. Ironically, such claims are made without any qualifications or doubt that they could be wrong. When you make demonstrably false, unconditional, and hateful claims about a religion, this incites hate in others against that religion too, and therefore against all who follow or identify with that religion. This is what makes you, Peter Townsend, a hate monger. And when you do so repeatedly, as you do roughly every ten minutes on Twitter like clockwork with the same dozen or so hate memes, it makes you nothing more than a common propagandist. I’m sorry, but there is no escaping this logic.

Moreover, when you state such false claims even after they are debunked, this then becomes proof of your own irrational and fanatical hatred. And when you try to separate “Islam” from “Muslim” simply to avoid the obvious charge of bigotry, this is yet another absurd, propagandized equivocation fallacy.

Both “Islam” and “Muslim” are actually based on the same SLM root, meaning “peace”. You can’t simply detach one completely from the other, and then hate “Islam” but be perfectly neutral towards “Muslims” in general. That’s completely irrational and a fundamental rejection of human nature. After all, by definition, those who literally embody Islam are true Muslims!

V.

Your Rebuttal Approach Debunked

You also state the following to outline your entire rebuttal approach in two separate quotes: I want to suggest that the same principle (Outsider perspectives are formed with reference to official views and majority opinion) applies to an outsider view of Islam and will make the implications of this clear as we go along. (p.4) ….

The outsider can only observe and evaluate the use to which texts are being put within a faith not his own and then comment on that. Applied to Islam this means observing that the standard interpretive and historiographical traditions are regarded as sacrosanct by the majority of Muslims (this assertion will be backed up in a later section of this article) and should therefore be included in any critique of Islam.

Please keep the principles elucidated above in mind as they will in many ways underpin the rest of this article. The following section will contain a short case study on the impact of a revisionist translation proposal on ‘outsider perspectives’ before moving on to a discussion on the misuse of ‘logical fallacy’ charges (particularly relevant in the context of Mr Chameleon’s debating methods). I will then move to three areas that I regard as of primary, secondary and tertiary importance respectively, these are:

6 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication   

The role of a generally misogynistic environment in encouraging domestic violence.

The legal status of ‘wife beating’ in Islam Issues surrounding Qur’an 4:34 as encountered by the majority of Muslims

(p. 4) It’s funny how you tout the importance of the “standard interpretive and historiographical traditions [that] are regarded as sacrosanct by the majority of Muslims”, yet you refuse to consider the arguments from the ONLY universal and most sacrosanct source of all: the Quran! In fact, as you repeatedly emphasize – and again in the bullet points above – you put the Quran dead last in importance.

In actuality, the Quran is not even your “tertiary” or dead last criterion as you claim. What you are stating as the tertiary criterion in bullet point #3 is nothing but an ad populum fallacy. What the Quran actually says per thorough exegetical analysis is not important at all according to you. What “the [alleged] majority of Muslims” think it says (particularly on verse 4:34), even without any real analysis backing that view, must be ‘true Islam’ according to you. Your willful ignorance of the highest and, yes, most “pristine”, way of interpreting the Quran is highlighted again in this quote of yours towards the end of your document: Mr Chameleon seems to think that there exists some kind of pristine Qur’an that contains his interpretation and that ‘the Qur’an’ therefore teaches what he says it does. This is a ridiculous notion to say the least. The teaching of the Qur’an has no independent ‘pristine’ meaning separate from the way that it is internalised by those who claim to follow its message. (p. 24) What you are clearly missing is that, not just the majority, but essentially ALL, Muslim scholars I know of don’t just hold the Quran “sacrosanct” with respect to defining Islam. They also hold the Quran as the most sacrosanct and only “pristine” source in interpreting the Quran itself. This sacrosanct interpretive tradition was exactly the methodology that I employed per the core analysis in my book, which you 100% ignored – no doubt because it came to a surprisingly unequivocal conclusion against your misogynistic claim.

This Quranic method of tafsir (interpretation of the Quran with the Quran) is universally considered by Muslim scholars worldwide to be the gold standard of Islamic jurisprudence and interpretation, even per traditional and medieval scholars, not just “moderate” ones. So to make the claim that my interpretation of verse 4:34 is “totally at odds with an ancient exegetical tradition” (p. 4) is patently false. Even more false is your misrepresentative claim that I acknowledge being at odds with this gold standard of “exegetical tradition”. Wrong! I only acknowledge the vast gap between what my factdriven analysis irrefutably shows and what traditional “scholars” baldly claim.

The more relevant question that you should be asking is this: Why have Muslim “scholars” for over a millennium been totally at odds with THEIR OWN GOLD STANDARD of exegetical tradition, which is interpreting the Quran with the Quran? As I stated emphatically in my book, NOT ONE scholar ever in history has applied this simple and straightforward gold standard of tafsir to come to the conclusion that “beat” is the correct translation for verse 4:34. NOT ONE. How could such tragic incompetence in scholarship occur? The only credible answer is a very long history of flagrant misogyny and taqlid amongst Muslim scholars, who have almost without exception been male.

7 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication Now let’s work our way up to criterion #2 in your bullet list, “the legal status of ‘wife beating’ in Islam”.

This, of course, is nothing but a classic appeal to authority fallacy. Why would the legal system in cherrypicked dictatorships at a certain point in time in history have any relevance to what Islam actually teaches per the original Scripture? If you find those tyrannical authorities so convincing in their masterful academic prowess, then why did you not cite even one of their arguments to rebut mine? Do they not also claim to base all of their decisions on the Quran and hadiths? Or do they have additional mysterious sources that no one else in the world has access to? Please do tell. You have no idea how much you are embarrassing yourself hiding behind the coattails of nameless tyrants and their patsy mullahs who couldn’t put a cogent, defensible argument together on this topic if they tried.

Now let’s move on to your top criterion #1 in your bullet list in determining whether “Islam” permits beating women. As I predicted in my book (section IV.3), your top criterion is nothing but the classic “guilt by association fallacy – the last recourse and #1 Islamophobia propaganda ploy”. You assert that there is a “generally misogynistic environment in encouraging domestic violence” amongst Muslims. What you are desperately trying to do here is to create an association of guilt (and thereby an implied logical causation) between Islam and domestic violence amongst Muslims. Yet you present ZERO data showing that domestic violence is more prevalent amongst Muslims than it is amongst nonMuslims. As I showed in my document, there is a massive epidemic of domestic violence and other violence against women amongst non-Muslims, so trying to point the finger uniquely at Muslims on this issue is perhaps the most embarrassing hypocrisy of all. It is also insulting to the unrecognized millions of non-Muslim women worldwide who suffer from such violence, as if their suffering does not even exist.

Even worse than presenting no data to back up the alleged relative prevalence of domestic violence amongst Muslims vs. non-Muslims, you even fail in your association fallacy to make any logical connection between some hazy “generally misogynistic environment” and domestic violence. So what we are left with is just a bunch of red herring or goalpost moving fallacies to connect completely unrelated facts from the Quran and hadiths to some remotely indirect “permission” (?) to beat women, even though not one fact gives such permission explicitly or implicitly.

VI.

Your Jerome vs. Valla Case Study

You next bring up the bizarre example of Jerome vs. Valla as analogous to my challenge against tradition. However, your false analogy fallacy falls completely apart, and you embarrass yourself even more in the process. By implication, you are claiming that the interpretation of Jerome is the ‘true Catholicism/Christianity’, even though he literally just “sat in a hermit’s cell near Bethlehem in Judea and puzzled over the correct Latin translation of the Greek word metanoia” to come up with his translation “decision” (p. 5). Note how ZERO factual or analytical effort is implied in this “decision” process and how his ascetic lifestyle therefore led him to “decide” that penitent self-abnegation is the true meaning of ‘metanoia’. This contrasts with Valla, whom you describe gloriously as follows: … [a] brilliant Latin translator [who] pointed out that ‘metanoia’ in ancient Greek texts always means to ‘change your mind or ‘turn around’. What was in view here, according to Valla was conversion or ‘turning to God’, not a series of regularly penitential acts. (p. 5, my emphasis in bold)

8 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication The parallel that you are implicitly making to my exegetical analysis of the DRB root always meaning “separate (from)”, or a synonym thereof, in the Quran (i.e., ALL 58 times) is unmistakable. In effect, what you are asserting is that you will endorse and continue to promote the interpretation of Islam (and Christianity) that is based on sheer willful ignorance and whimsical personal “decisions” rather than factdriven, analytical conclusions. Do you have any idea how silly and fanatical this makes you sound?

Another false analogy fallacy in your Valla “case study” is equating the Catholic Church to some unnamed central despotic authority in Islam. You say “Catholics were commanded to hold to Jerome’s interpretation of ‘metanoia’ by the Council of Trent” (p. 6, my emphasis in bold) and “Even today, more than 500 years after Valla dropped his bombshell, Catholics (comprising about half of all Christians) are still commanded to follow Jerome” (p. 7, my emphasis in bold). Unfortunately for your analogy, there is no such central authority in Islam whatsoever, Peter. Muslims don’t even need such an authority, nor is such a theocratic central authority even compatible with Islam. Your analogy is bogus. At best, there are state sponsored clerics on politicians’ payrolls parroting the will of their paymasters. The days when such mythical superhuman religious authorities could hold sway over anything close to a majority of Muslims are long gone.

Unlike the Catholic Church and its top-down dogmas, the problem with Muslims today is not passionate devotion to any central religious authority whom you are hallucinating exists and will fight my arguments tooth and nail into silence like they did to Valla. Not at all. I have no fear of any such dimwitted, knuckle-dragging drone challengers crossing my path, even though I wish they would. The exact OPPOSITE is true.

With respect to resisting change, the problem with most Muslims today is extreme apathy, not active resistance. Muslims are failing to become scholars of the Quran themselves, as the Quran commands them to be – and after they do so, to oppose ALL would-be theocrats and to challenge ANY “authority” who wants to dictate to them unilaterally what the Quran teaches. The time of unquestioned authority is long over. Unfortunately, most Muslims have yet to wake up to this fact and seem to be waiting apathetically for a new central authority that doesn’t exist, and likely never will again. In my opinion, I happily say “good riddance” to all theocrats and “professional Muslims”, since men were never meant to worship other men.

The truth, contrary to your wild claim about how strongly Muslims will oppose me, is that I have so far encountered ZERO active resistance to my book from any Muslims. I have only received strong support from Muslims who do offer feedback. This is the main reason why I seem to challenge only nonMuslims to debate me. They are essentially the only ones who object (and so far, always without any substantive rebuttal), which makes them the only ones who could possibly help stress test my arguments. So how does that scenario fit into your case study and “minority report” claim exactly?

Answer: it doesn’t at all.

VII.

Your Hilarious Denial of Fallacies

I love how you quote some guy named Mark Fletcher, who derides “fallacy talk” like this: Nine times out of ten, it’s an attempt to normalise rules of discussion in favour of a privileged mindset. Invariably, people who invoke ‘fallacy talk’ characterise their own position as defaultrational and, more concerningly, values-neutral. (p. 8) 9 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication So from where did Mark pull that “nine times out of ten” fact, along with his absurdly indefensible “invariably” claim? From his backside, of course. In other words, the very guy who is condemning fallacies is committing the worst fallacy of all while he does so: a factual fallacy, not just a logical fallacy.

And in trying to discredit those who point out a fallacy as being guilty of a fallacy “nine times out of ten” themselves because of an alleged motive, this is nothing but a flagrant appeal to motive fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive ). The irony from this self-styled ‘fallacy expert’ is so off the charts that the fallacies he invokes don’t even register until you think about them. What’s even funnier is how you then literally invent fallacies, like the “Latin Fallacy” and the “Logical Fallacy Accusation Fallacy”, thereby publicly ridiculing your idiocy and willful ignorance of bad arguments even more. That’s quite silly for someone claiming the rational high ground, but very entertaining indeed.

What is perhaps most embarrassing of all, though, is that you have no clue what logical fallacies even are. You make this preposterous claim: The fact is that any fallacy accusations would be logical errors in themselves as I will simply be stating observable and measurable facts.... I believe Mr Chameleon s guilty of exactly the same logical error that my hypothetical fringe-Mormon made by confusing observable facts with logical fallacy. (p. 8-9) Factual errors are not logical fallacies. Merely “stating observable and measurable facts” are also never logical fallacies, even if the facts are wrong. What makes them LOGICAL fallacies is the LOGIC attached to those facts and linking them to fallacious claims! Do you not even understand the difference between facts and logic, Peter? For example, stating “Islam = X because most Muslims believe Islam = X to be true” is an ad populum fallacy. However, merely observing that “most Muslims believe Islam = X” (per a survey) is not. That’s just an observation without any claim attached to it. Get it?

VIII.

Your “Misogynistic Environment” Red Herring / Goalpost Fallacies

In your next rebuttal section from pages 9-14, you carpet bomb, via a copy-paste dump from your book or articles, the standard propaganda misogyny talking points based on the following facts: 1) Quran 2:223, 2) Quran 2:282, 3) Quran 4:43, 4) Quran 4:3, 5) Quran 78:31-33, 6) Bukari 1:6:301 and Bukhari 1:2:29, 7) Bukhari 7:62:33, 8) Bukhari 54:460, 9) Muslim 337 and Bukhari 4:176:2229, and 10) Quran 4:24. Note that NOT ONE of these facts has any relevance in answering the topic question up for debate, “Is beating women permitted in Islam?” This is once again another frantic attempt on your part to move the goalposts to whole new topics entirely, thereby also making them red herring fallacies in the context of our agreed debate. As I said in our pre-debate discussion, if you really wanted to debate other misogyny topics beyond the debate topic in question, that would be in a separate debate #2.

For example, the topic of sexual slavery has almost as many facts to cover as our first debate topic, and this is the core topic of Part 2 of my book, as I noted in Part 1. In Part 2, I cover (and debunk) all the Islamophobia claims based on your facts cited above. Since you have failed to rebut ANY of my arguments in Part 1 of my book, I don’t see much point in responding to propaganda claims that are totally irrelevant to the claim currently under debate. That said, to avoid the juvenile claim that I am now running from your “rebuttal”, I will rebut most of your vacuous claims with selectively scaled back arguments based on what my analysis will show in Part 2 of my book. The only exceptions are the

10 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication Islamophobia claims around “sexual slavery” and polygyny, which, it turns out, are two topics inextricably tied together. I am reserving these for a separate debate entirely.

1. Quran 2:223: Are Wives Just Sex Objects for “Whenever” a Husband Wants Sex? Unfortunately for anti-Islam propagandists like you, Peter, Quran 2:223 cannot possibly support a “when” or “whenever” interpretation for a man’s sexual desires based on clear facts in the Quran and the confirming clarification of this verse per hadiths. One of the key facts debunking the “whenever” interpretation is none other than verse 4:34, as I addressed in my initial rebuttal (Part 1 of my book). If there is any marital breakdown, men are explicitly commanded per verse 4:34 (per the imperative verb tense in the HJR root verb) to leave their wives alone in bed and thus to STOP all sexual relations.

Therefore, verse 2:223 cannot possibly be a carte blanche permission to force one’s wife to have sex “whenever” a man wants, just as verse 4:34 cannot possibly be used to “beat” one’s wife for refusing sex right after God explicitly commands a husband NOT to have sex with her due to a marital breakdown!

The misogynistic sexual fantasies and contortions claimed by men (including you, Peter) are simply absurd and utterly irrational. The “whenever” interpretation is also debunked by the immediately preceding verse 2:222, which could not possibly be more relevant as explanatory context for verse 2:223. When a woman is having her menstrual cycle, sexual intercourse is explicitly not permitted for her husband per verse 2:222, since this is a time of great discomfort for women, and it is also not clean, for very obvious reasons. So if this window of time is also prohibited to men for sexual relations, how can “whenever” possibly be true? It simply cannot.

As a result, Quran 2:223 can only logically refer to “how” (not “when”) sexual intercourse is permitted.

This is confirmed by the Quran itself with respect to the word annā, which almost invariably means “how” in the Quran (across 36 instances), not “when” or “whenever”. Unfortunately, most translations are misogynistic and state “when” or “how and when” in this verse, as some sort of bizarre, sex fantasy exception to just about every other usage of this word elsewhere in the Quran.

The “how”-only interpretation is also 100% unequivocally confirmed by hadiths, which clarify the very specific historical context behind this verse and why it was revealed. The Jews of Medina asserted that certain sexual positions were forbidden and would result in children with birth defects. Quran 2:223 was therefore revealed directly in response to this popular mythology of Medina, which even Umar became fearful of per this hadith: http://www.sunnah.com/urn/639730 (Tirmidhi 44:2980). This false belief was even resulting in severe marital conflicts as the Muslims from Mecca entered into marital relationships with those from Medina who clung to this belief, as recounted in the fuller historical context behind this verse here: http://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/12/119 (Dawud 11:2159). It never surprises me how Islamophobes invariably fail to point out such obvious contextual facts that totally crush their hate narrative.

But that is not all. From this hadith context, which even explicitly points to verse 2:223, it also becomes exceedingly clear why the word “tilth” is used in the verse. This word does not imply some sort of sexual freedom fantasy for men, but exactly the opposite. It is a very precise fertility euphemism and metaphor implying a restriction upon men to vaginal intercourse only -- not anal intercourse, and not sex during a woman’s menses when she is clearly incapable of being fertile (alluding once again to the 11 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication explicit restriction in Quran 2:222). And, no, this is not my “personal Islam” interpretation at all. It is the explicit interpretation of that verse per the first hadith linked above stating what type of intercourse is freely permissible (i.e., any sexual position) or restricted (anal sex or sex during a time of menstruation): “From the front or the back, avoiding the anus and menstruation”. How much clearer could it be?

The “tilth” metaphor also implies the very serious responsibility of reproduction and fatherhood, which is again exactly opposite to the ‘women as sex objects’ fantasy bizarrely attributed to this verse. That is why verse 2:223 finishes with strong words of warning to men, which are invariably omitted by Islamophobes: “…and send forth (good deeds) [i.e., into the future] for yourselves, and be conscious of God, and know that you will meet Him.” These words come immediately after the much-maligned “tilth” phrase within the very same sentence, and thus they directly qualify this phrase that Islamophobes love to quote. In other words, sex is not to be treated as a selfish, impulsive act in Islam at all. It is an act of great responsibility and commitment, both to others (wife and children) and to God, forever into the future. And even in the act of sex, Muslim men (like women too) should still remain conscious of God. So when all is said and done, the Islamophobia claim around Quran 2:223 is yet another misogynistic hate narrative completely debunked. I’m so sorry, Peter, for taking away yet another one of your favorite hate toys! But we must continue.

2. Quran 2:282: Is a Woman’s Testimony Equal to Only Half a Man’s?

The idea that a woman’s testimony in court is worth half a man’s is utter nonsense. A woman’s testimony in court is equal to that of a man. In fact, a single woman’s testimony has the power to invalidate a single man’s testimony, and that is in court per the Quran. This is proven by verses 24:4-9, which address a claim by a husband that his wife is committing adultery. Verse 24:8 states, “The woman’s punishment can be averted if she swears four times by God as testimony that her husband is a liar.” This is the only reference to testimony of a woman on her behalf in court in the entire Quran that I am aware of.

The only other reference to testimony of women that I am aware of is in verse 2:282, which refers to witnesses to financial transactions involving debt. First of all, take note that this verse is in reference to women being witnesses to a contract between two third parties. The women are merely witnesses to the terms of a contract, not parties to the contract themselves. Second, it involves debt payable over an extended period of time, which clearly can involve high pressure measures to enforce or bypass the contract terms, particularly if one party to the contract dies before the loan is repaid and heirs are left to rely on only the contract witness(es).

Third, which is the most important point of all here, it involves an unwritten (i.e., oral) contract. This could be the case, for example (per verse 2:282), when the borrower, who is the one responsible for writing down the terms per this verse, is “deficient of mind, weak or incapable [illiterate]” and is relying on the verbal dictation of a guardian (i.e., without a scribe) to “record” the contract to memory via witnesses. Although it may technically not be relevant given the lack of a neuter gender in Arabic, it should still be noted that all three nouns in this phrase describing a borrower who is of lesser intelligence, weak or illiterate are masculine. Now how ironic is that?

12 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication An oral contract, especially under such longer term circumstances, is a very precarious situation indeed, given the potential conflicts involved if there is a breach. In this situation, the witnesses themselves are the ones who have to remember, vouchsafe, protect, and help enforce the terms of the contract, since there is no written agreement. This is why this verse emphatically recommends both at the beginning and at the end of the verse to do the contract in writing rather than via witnesses alone. “Draw up an agreement in writing” is stated at the beginning of the verse. And at the end it states, “But do not neglect to draw up a contract, big or small, with the time fixed for paying back the debt. This is more equitable in the eyes of God, and better as evidence and best for avoiding doubt.” Literacy, especially legal literacy, cannot always be assumed, however, especially in less educated or more rural regions.

Therefore, sometimes oral contracts of this nature were a practical and unavoidable necessity, in spite of the Quran’s strong advice to the contrary.

This verse allegedly goes on to state that two women (in the place of one man) are preferable to use as such witnesses “in case one errs”, which is the only root source of the claim that ‘two women’s testimonies are equal to one man’s testimony’ per misogynists. However, the key question is why would one woman “err” at all, and why would one woman (but somehow not two) be more likely to “err” than one man? If this second woman is always smarter than the first woman, then why not just use her and tell the allegedly less intelligent one to go home?

The answer is implied in the same verse 2:282: “Have witnesses to the deal, and (make sure) that not the scribe nor (any) witness is harmed. If you do, it would surely be sinful on your part.” This verse makes it clear that the agreement is supported either by a scribe, who vouchsafes the written contract; or by witnesses, who vouchsafe the exact terms of the verbal contract. It is the threat of physical harm to, or coercion of, women that is being protected against here, as would be typical of more primitive societies relying on oral contracts. We are beginning to see that this verse really has nothing to do with women’s intelligence, or lack thereof, at all.

The apparent incongruity and misogyny in translation is eliminated when we discover what the true translation of the “errs” word is in Arabic, since it is this word that is driving the entire misogynistic claim (similar to the DRB root in verse 4:34). The DLL root (taḍilla in verse 2:282) is actually used in the Quran 191 times, and in nearly every case, it implies “going astray”, particularly in the context of being “misled” into sin. The common thread in virtually all of these meanings is an implication of a wrong moral choice, not a wrong intellectual conclusion, bad memory, or simply poor logical understanding.

An element of potential or likely sin, which verse 2:282 warns against repeatedly, is undeniably present in the DLL root nearly everywhere it is used in the Quran. Moreover, the type of potential sin usually implied by the DLL root is due to being misled, influenced or coerced to go (morally) astray on a different path than what one would normally be on otherwise.

Putting all of these pieces together, we can now see that this “two women” proviso is designed to protect a single woman from being subjected to coercive pressure or outright “harm” by the party breaching the contract, which would not at all be unusual in a more primitive society still relying on oral contracts. The presence and support of another women could definitely reduce the pressure and possibility of coerced perjury. However, another woman obviously can’t make the first woman magically more intelligent merely by her presence, as some misogynists bizarrely imply.

Supporting this interpretation even further is why another woman is recommended per the Quran “in case one goes (morally) astray”. The answer is simple: to “remind her”. But “remind her” of what? The 13 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication very next phrase answers that question too: “When the witnesses are summoned, they should not refuse (to give witness and to do so accurately).” In other words, it is to remind her of her obligation not to lie by giving false witness or by claiming that she no longer remembers correctly when she actually does. This also implies that these women are witnesses to the terms of an oral contract, not a written contract, since such a “reminder” would otherwise not make sense.

Note that bearing false witness in Islam does not just include telling an outright lie. It also includes concealing the truth (e.g., by refusing to testify) when you have an obligation to bear witness to it. The unequivocal prohibition against lying and concealing the truth as a witness can be found in many verses in the Quran, including these: 2:42, 4:135, 5:8, 4:112, 16:90, 5:2, 2:283, 45:7, and 60:12. For quotes of all these in one location, refer to this site: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran_ten_commandments.htm.

Note in particular verse 2:283 in this list, which comes immediately after the verse we have been focusing on here. Even Muslims generally omit citing this context when analyzing the meaning of the DLL root word in verse 2:282, since they generally fail to make the connection to what a woman is being reminded of after “going (morally) astray”. As discussed above, verse 2:282 makes it clear that a woman should be “reminded” of her obligation to tell the truth and never to give false witness when she appears to be “going (morally) astray”, or rather being “misled/coerced astray”, as both the DLL root and context imply. This same moral reminder directed at contract witnesses (including participants) is repeated YET AGAIN in verse 2:283: If you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then (offer) a pledge in hand [i.e., deposit]. And if one of you deposits a pledge in trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him fear God, his Lord. And do not conceal evidence; for whoever conceals it, his heart is tainted with sin. And God is All-Knower of what you do. (Quran 2:283) Not surprisingly, verse 2:283 refers once again to the unfortunate necessity of an oral contract, this time when a scribe is not available due to the parties to a contract being away on a journey. Thus the Quran is ironically “reminding” all of us too (as Muslim readers) a second time of our moral obligation. In two adjacent verses, the Quran commands never to conceal evidence as a witness to an oral contract, thereby underlining this literal “reminder” to us all in quite an emphatic (and symbolic) manner indeed.

Logically, the only reason that a woman who has no stake in a contract would outright refuse to give witness or would do so inaccurately – both undeniable and explicit sins per the Quran – would be because of threats or other intimidating coercion behind the scenes. The moral warnings in verse 2:282 only make sense in terms of linking a specific “reminder” to a more general moral warning elsewhere.

Per the Quran, that warning is basically as follows: bearing false witness (including refusing to testify) is a grave sin in Islam, while giving clear, complete and accurate witness is an irrefutable obligation.

To help make that moral obligation achievable, one woman effectively makes the other woman publicly accountable to the truth regarding the contract terms when either of them may otherwise be coerced into committing perjury or not giving any witness at all. Also, the verse itself creates a very effective deterrent (via distributed accountability) against manipulators and thugs exploiting an otherwise easy opportunity to coerce a more vulnerable, isolated witness for financial gain. It is really that simple, and ultimately just common sense.

14 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication However, before moving on, we need to take a step back to note that oral contracts were far more common in earlier centuries due to extreme levels of illiteracy, total lack of paper, etc. They are really no longer needed in any modern country today, even in rural areas, especially with modern telecommunication. So, effectively, the portion of verse 2:282 suggesting an additional female witness in such oral third-party debt agreements becomes irrelevant in all modern societies.

Some misogynistic interpreters of this verse have opined that the two female witnesses would also be better given the general role of Muslim females, who would not be as experienced in business as males (or as “intelligent”, referencing that one misinterpreted hadith discussed below). This is based on the lazy and incoherent assumption that males are the only commercial contractors/traders/earners in a Muslim family. This is not a valid interpretation at all, of course, especially in light of 1) the clear meaning of the DLL root in the Quran implying a moral error only, not a memory error; and 2) Muhammad marrying his employer, Khadija, a successful and independent merchant businesswoman.

The interpretation that ‘men are more experienced with contracts than women’ is also not supported by the explicit warning of potential “harm” coming to oral contract witnesses, who would be in danger of physical or other coercion causing them to “go (morally) astray”, which has nothing to do with intelligence. Hence the need and wisdom for distributed accountability of witnesses. Note that even one male witness is not enough for these contracts. At least two men are required. Also note that verse 2:282 is actually stating a general preference for men only to be witnesses to these types of oral contracts due to the inherent vulnerability of witnesses to being “harmed”, manipulated or threatened, as the verse explicitly warns. Using two women as witnesses in place of one of the men is really just a stopgap measure when insufficient men are available.

Keep in mind that, by definition, there is zero benefit to women in being independent third party witnesses to such oral contracts that they have absolutely no stake in. However, as this verse implies, there can be a very significant risk of both personal harm and spiritual trial in doing so. Today it is difficult to even imagine such a risky life scenario, since we live in a cushy world of written contracts backed up by the machinery of our powerful and smoothly running judicial and executive branches of government to enforce them. By contrast, in a primitive world of oral contracts and “might makes right”, the witnesses themselves effectively become the judicial and (in part) executive branches of government to enforce these contracts over an extended period of time, potentially making or breaking financial lives in the process.

So instead of being discriminatory vs. women, this verse is actually an undeniable concession to women.

In effect, men are obligated to assume at least twice – and usually all – of the personal risk and spiritual trial as witnesses to oral debt contracts of third parties. Therefore, like so many other Islamophobia and misogyny claims, the facts allegedly backing them up point to exactly the opposite conclusion upon deeper scrutiny! The irony just never stops, does it?

Regardless of all this analysis completely crushing this misogyny claim, no alternative interpretation can change the fact that this extra witness proviso is effectively irrelevant under written contract law today in all modern countries. This is what the Quran anticipated 1,400 years ago, and still promotes today, in recommending written contracts for all debt agreements.

So yet another misogynistic claim is completely debunked with a very straightforward and literal interpretation of the Quran, by the Quran. At this point, I think it’s a great time to pause and 15 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication appropriately ridicule my debate opponent’s hate agenda with some very well-deserved irony: “Never before have I seen anyone as deficient in intelligence as you.” More on that joke, and its irony, later.

3. Quran 4:43: Are Women Inherently Impure?

This propaganda claim is hilarious and clearly targeted at those totally ignorant of Islam. BOTH men and women are considered ritually impure after sexual intercourse, which is abundantly clarified in hadiths.

It is not mere “contact” with women that causes impurity, but contact that is definitively sexual, as the context of this verse clearly implies too. The same applies to women who become ritually impure after sexual contact with men. So does that make men inherently impure as well? The idiocy of this antiIslam propaganda is actually quite transparent, since even Muslims do not propagate such one-sided nonsense about women being inherently impure.

Hadiths even narrate how Aisha combed Muhammad’s hair during her menses, and he even leaned on her lap and recited the Quran during her menses (see Bukhari 6:295 and 6:296). If mere “contact” with a woman (especially a menstruating woman as some attribute to this verse) makes a man ritually impure, then such casual contact and interaction with a menstruating woman by the Messenger of God who delivered that very same Quran would not make any sense. Therefore, yet another Islamophobia claim is easily debunked.

4. Quran 4:3: Is Polygyny a Right or a Restricted Permission?

Monogamy is the rule, not the exception, amongst Muslims worldwide. As my Part 2 analysis will show, the Quran also unequivocally supports this as the position of Islam, notwithstanding wild male sex fantasies to the contrary. There are far too many facts to address this out of scope debate topic adequately here, and it also (quite surprisingly) builds extensively upon the “sexual slavery” debate, so I will not dive into it any further.

Interestingly, though, you apparently forgot that the Bible gives a similar allowance for polygyny, except without any restrictions, caveats, etc., as stipulated per the Quran: "And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives."

(Judges 8:30) "And he [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart." (1 Kings 11:3)

5. Quran 78:31-33: Voluptuous Breasted Women in Heaven?

Your assertion on the meaning of the KEB (K-Ayn-B) root as “voluptuous breasts” is simply wrong and another misogynistic sex fantasy, especially in light of the Quran itself. KEB is the same root used for the Kaaba, the Holy Mosque in Mecca! Your translation is also wrong in another very critical way, which will take too much time to elaborate on here given that it is out of scope.

The whole “Companions of Heaven” topic to which this claim relates is yet another example of the grossly distorted interpretations of the Quran based on medieval, patriarchal tradition. But once again, you lapped up all this medieval slop like a lost, hungry puppy simply because it fits your hate narrative.

16 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication That said, I don’t want to just drop this out of scope topic completely. Here is one link among many that discusses this topic and debunks the popular misconceptions about it in much more detail: http://www.free-minds.org/companions-heaven.

There is also a fairly good analysis of this verse by Muhammad Asad, who points out in his translation footnote for verse 78:33 that he's using a tropical definition of the word kawaa'ib. He also debunks the “voluptuous breasts” translation in the process: For the above rendering of atrab, see surah 56, note 15. As regards my rendering of kawa'ib as 'splendid companions', it is to be remembered that the term ka'b -from which the participle ka'ib is derived - has many meanings, and that one of these meanings is 'prominence', 'eminence' or 'glory' (Lisan al-Arab); thus, the verb ka'ba, when applied to a person, signifies 'he made [another person] prominent', 'glorious' or 'splendid' (ibid.) Based on this tropical meaning of both the verb ka'ba and the noun ka'b, the participle ka'ib has often been used, in popular parlance, to denote 'a girl whose breasts are becoming prominent' or 'are budding' hence, many commentators see in it an allusion to some sort of youthful 'female companions' who would entertain the (presumably male) inmates of paradise. But quite apart from the fact that all Qur'anic allegories of the joys of paradise invariably apply to men and women alike, this interpretation of kawa'ib overlooks the purely derivative origin of the above popular usage which is based on the tropical connotation of 'prominence' inherent in the noun ka'b - and substitutes for this obvious tropism the literal meaning of something that is physically prominent: and this, in my opinion, is utterly unjustified. If we bear in mind that the Qur'anic descriptions of the blessings of paradise are always allegorical, we realize that in the above context the term kawa'ib can have no other meaning than 'glorious [or 'splendid'] beings', without any definition of sex; and that, in combination with the term atrab, it denotes, 'splendid companions well matched' - thus alluding to the relations of the blest with one another, and stressing the absolute mutual compatibility and equal dignity of all of them. See also note 13 on 56:34.

6. Is “Sexual Slavery” Allowed per Quran 4:24, Muslim 3371, Bukhari 176:2229, etc.?

Quran 4:24 is among the key 4-5 verses backing the so-called “sexual slavery” claim against Islam. These verses, along with related hadiths, form the core of Part 2 of my book, so I will not elaborate upon that extensive analysis here. However, in the same decisive way that I debunked the 4:34 interpretation, I also debunk this “sexual slavery” claim. Even at face value, this claim is simply ludicrous given the prohibitions and penalties for illicit sexual relations per the Quran. That men could somehow be allowed the completely opposite exception to these strict moral prohibitions is absurd. Even more absurd is the claim that men are allowed to violate these moral prohibitions egregiously via rape! But that is just scratching the surface of this propaganda hate narrative, which has very deep and dirty roots in the same medieval mullahs on politicians’ payrolls that Islamophobes like you love to invoke as your revered “experts” on Islam.

You also ironically claim to be oh-so-offended by alleged accounts in hadiths that merely imply sexual slavery (but actually don’t support it, per my separate analysis). However, your feigned aversion to this dubious extra-scriptural account would be a lot more believable had you shown a similar aversion to the account in your scripture below: 17 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. . . . And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?. . . . Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:9-18) And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

7. Your Hypocritical Appeal to Hadiths: Having Your Hate Cake and Eating It Too In addition to the abovementioned Quran verses, you also cherrypick the same handful of hadiths, out of many thousands, that Islamophobia propagandists love to cite. The funny thing is, I have never once heard any Muslim cite these hadiths to teach Islam in my entire life, which makes them, at the very least, quite obscure in relevance. This is especially important given the fact that we now know many hadiths have been fabricated.

But fabricated facts clearly won’t slow you down, let alone stop your propaganda juggernaut, even after your “facts” are exposed as false or wild conjecture. I truly enjoyed your embarrassing hypocrisy in blatantly appealing to the revered authority of Bukhari and Muslim hadiths, even though you also claimed several times before that they are just retroactive “projections” that are totally bogus: “All of the following statements have been drawn from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the most widely respected hadith collections in the Muslim world” (p. 11, my emphasis in bold).

Talk about ‘having your cake and eating it too’ on hadiths! Stating this observation of yours alone is not an explicit logical fallacy, of course. However, it is a factual misrepresentation, since only Sunnis (and only some of them) respect these hadiths. What makes it an implied logical fallacy is your reverential appeal to hadith authority, without any qualification on reliability, in connecting this logic to your subsequent claims.

For example, you could have also stated the staunchly opposing factual observation, which is roughly as follows, per my words: It is also widely acknowledged that, unlike the Quran, errors in hadiths (even Bukhari) are the rule, not the exception. About 2/3 of Bukhari hadiths contain errors of some sort simply by doing the math of how many differing versions of the same unique hadiths exist vs. the total hadiths (http://sahih-bukhari.com/ ). And no doubt the remaining 1/3 has many unknown errors as well by simple probability alone.

You could have also stated that hadiths were never meant to be treated as word-by-word accurate representations of the original wording. Even traditional scholars agree on this point, that elevating hadiths to such high levels of accuracy is impossible. How could they be that accurate? Most hadiths are very obviously contradicted by other hadiths at a word-by-word level. Moreover, they were only 18 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication transmitted linearly in an oral fashion (not in parallel and not in writing), and only written down about a quarter millennium later!

Now let’s take a quick look at these hadiths as I see them without necessarily diving into in-depth analysis, since you provided ZERO analysis on your propaganda-inspired claims. However, I will make a bit of an exception on the last one, since this hadith captures a lot of your ironic misogynistic hysteria.

8. Bukhari 7:62:33: Women Are a Great “Trial” for Men Bukhari 7:62:33 apparently states “I have not left after me a trial more harmful to men than women”.

Well, yes, because as verse 4:34 and other verses emphatically state per my analysis, there is a heavy obligation upon Muslim men to be the lifelong providers for women. In a “trial”, men are either guilty (fail) or innocent (succeed). That’s exactly what a “trial” is – a test of character and responsibility – and the consequences for failing are potentially quite severe indeed. That is why a very popular and oftrepeated hadith amongst Muslim men (unlike your obscure ones pummeling Muslim women) is, “Marriage is half of your deen (faith)”. Yes, marriage is THAT important in Islam, which makes women – and treating women well – THAT important to their husbands. It’s funny how propaganda can totally backfire on you, isn’t it?

9. Bukhari 54:460: Unilateral and Unconditional Sex Rights for Men? Bukhari 54:460 emphasizes the universal obligation of sexual relations in marriage. Ironically, as I addressed in Part 1 of my book, the only obligation that the Quran specifies (in more than one verse) with respect to sexual relations and intimacy is upon men! In particular, per verse 4:128, a woman has a right to divorce if her husband deserts her and does not provide her intimacy, including sexual. There is no such similar obligation upon women of sexual intimacy for the benefit of men specified in verse 4:34.

Note that both verse 4:128 and verse 4:34 both specify the same exact nushuz criterion as the potential basis for divorce, but only verse 4:128 gives women the additional criterion (and leverage) to seek divorce for desertion only (i.e., lack of intimacy independent of any nushuz). There’s that darned “sharia” getting in the way of a good propaganda story again – sorry about that, Peter.

Also, the idea that men can forcefully have sex with their wives is completely debunked by the Quran itself, as I elaborated upon in my main analysis and again above in my discussion of verse 2:223. If there is any marital breakdown, men are explicitly commanded per verse 4:34 (per the imperative verb tense in the HJR root verb here) to leave their wives alone in bed and therefore to STOP all sexual relations.

Finally, and quite ironically, even this hadith is implicitly acknowledging that women have the unilateral choice to abandon their husbands in bed without men being given any permission to stop them.

Naturally, however, this is not the best option for any successful marriage, as the hadith implies. How is this not simply common sense?

10. Bukhari 1:6:301: The Misogyny Kitchen Sink Hadith that Islamophobes Love Bukhari 1:2:29 and Bukhari 1:6:301 are related and linked to the same exact incident. However, my focus will be on the latter, since it is more fact-rich, and I can also address all key points in Bukhari 1:2:29 in the process. Like Islamophobes, I love Bukhari 1:6:301 – not so much for what it says, but 19 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication because it is probably the #1 misogyny fact from hadiths that Islamophobes repeatedly cite, and because it encapsulates the hilarious irony of their hate narrative so well.

To avoid getting bogged down on this out of scope topic, I will skip the problems with the hadith translation, even though demonstrated translation errors in hadiths are rampant and can even result in the exact opposite message vs. the Arabic. I showed such outrageous translation defects in several other hadiths directly relevant to verse 4:34. In short, I will just focus on the translation ‘as is’ to make my main points here.

First of all, keep in mind that Muhammad was not making any official pronouncement in this hadith whatsoever. He was passing by and addressing a group of women on their way from the mosque just after they prayed. He was speaking only to them casually, clearly with some tongue-in-cheek rhetorical emphasis to bring across his main points in a playful, yet earnest, manner, which you completely glossed over. These points were as follows: 1) to urge them to give more alms and 2) to be more grateful.

In doing so, he was joking with them to win over their hearts. And clearly he accomplished exactly that goal. After he spoke to the women, “they started taking off their necklaces, earrings and rings, throwing them into Bilal's garment, giving them in charity”, with similar wording in multiple versions of this hadith. Why would all of these women make such an extravagant and generous gesture with some of their most cherished jewelry that they wore if Muhammad’s words were truly as insulting as Islamophobes claim, and not – as all facts indicate – playful ridicule of misogyny to get across his more serious and intended message to be more grateful and to give alms to the poor? Such a gaping incongruity between the misogynistic claim against Muhammad and the full facts of the hadiths in question could not possibly be more extreme.

But what is the crucial piece of evidence to support that Muhammad’s message was wrapped in wittiness and was spoken with jest, in a jovial environment? Well, that’s easy, and it is a fact straight from the hadith introduction that Islamophobes invariably ignore. It very clearly says that this conversation occurred immediately after the Eid prayer time on 'Eid-al-Adha or Eid Al-Fitr, which are the two main days of celebration, merriment, music, and having community fun in Islam. The Eid prayer itself is not even an obligatory prayer, since it is more a social than religious event. Moreover, just after the prayer time is when all the celebrations and fun start. If you had ever experienced Eid in your life, you would know how abundantly clear this social context would be.

Another point in the hadith alluding to his joking around is how the women played along so coyly with his comments and questions, even after he said to those specific women, “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you”. This was clearly said for rhetorical emphasis only, to grab their attention, so that they should put extra special effort into heeding his advice to do the good things that he was earnestly suggesting beneath all of his spirited teasing. As discussed below, we know that it was rhetorical based on the silly rhetorical questions that he asked of the women to get them to play along in confirming their own alleged “deficiency in intelligence and religion”, without any objections at all!

It should be noted that such words are not what Muhammad would ever say except in jest. There are no examples of him saying similar such words seriously or in any mean-spirited way (i.e., in insult) to others, let alone on the joyful, celebratory day of Eid. Not only would such a severe incongruity in behavior be unconscionable in light of Eid and Muhammad’s consistently compassionate character, it 20 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication would also be irrational, since an entire group of Muslim women could obviously not all be of the same piety or same intelligence. It must again be pointed out that NONE of the women raised any objections, nor did they openly confront him about how the Quran 100% contradicts those words, as would be expected if they had taken his words literally and seriously.

Note how Muhammad also includes in his moral jesting and hyperboles the following words of extraordinary flattery to set the tone of whatever he has to say: “A cautious, sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” This is no doubt just a playful compliment referencing their exceptional beauty and ornamentation on the day of Eid, where all the women wear their finest outfits and jewelry, even to this day. That unnamed “cautious, sensible man” logically must include him, meaning that their beauty on Eid is truly that remarkable, for which he himself is personally complimenting them without crossing the line towards flirting. Once again, this type of social interaction would be exceedingly obvious to anyone who has ever experienced Eid. Yet another indicator of Muhammad’s wittiness are the funny reasons -- framed as absurd synecdoches – that he gave for those women’s supposed lack of intelligence and religion. There are no other references at all for any woman being “deficient in religion” because of natural bodily functions that she has no ability to control, which was one silly rationale that he cited. In fact, many hadiths, as well as the Quran itself, contradict this claim unequivocally. As for the “deficient in intelligence” remark, this is also obviously in jest and a play on words given the very limited “moral error” (not memory error) applicability of verse 2:282 in adding a second female witness on third party oral financial contracts. It would be done for the sole purpose of controlling against moral and physical coercion of a more vulnerable female witness (as discussed above). In other words, the synecdoches that Muhammad invoked in his rhetorical questions were so obviously extrapolated and exaggerated, which is why the women played along.

It is very unfortunate that the tone and joyful nature of the Eid-day environment could not be recorded and transmitted with this static hadith text. It is even more unfortunate how twisted, and selectively literal, propagandists have become today, 1400+ years later, in reading the cherrypicked static text alone to further their hate agendas.

Note also how Muhammad introduces these absurd hyperboles and synecdoches about women not with prophetic assertions or statements, as would be expected if he were being serious. Instead, he asks deliberately loaded questions of a group of women about women without any men present (no doubt with a jesting tone to match) to get the women to play along with his joke (e.g., "Is not the evidence....?”). This clearly implies a tongue-in-cheek reference to actual Islamic doctrine that the woman already know of rather than to his own independent pronouncement, except with the obvious implication that the loaded questions are actually silly extrapolations and exaggerations (hyperboles), not real.

In other words, Muhammad is openly and interactively ridiculing those not present who twist his words and the words of the Quran for their own misogynistic purposes. Such misogyny promoters no doubt existed in his time as they do today, and the butt of his joke, while the women played coyly along, was clearly on the male misogynists who were not present. That’s right, Peter – Muhammad is actually ridiculing your misogyny promotion here, in the very same hadith that you are ironically claiming against him!

21 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication As for women being the “majority of the dwellers of Hell”, this is referencing nothing more than an alleged vivid thought in Muhammad’s own mind during a public prayer at the time of an eclipse just after his son’s death (i.e., on a separate occasion entirely). It was not at the time he “visited heaven and hell during his so-called night journey”, per the claim in your rebuttal (p. 12). Also, it was not a visual census of literally every person in Hell, as you ridiculously imply, but just a comment regarding a sample of those he envisioned in Hell. It also appears to have happened in a certain historical context of women being ungrateful that is not entirely disclosed in these various hadith versions.

More important, this vision was quite definitively in the historical context of Muhammad’s mournful thoughts about the hereafter as a result of the death of his only son, Ibrahim, just hours beforehand.

(Note that he also had visions of Paradise, not just Hell, during this public prayer.) Many other Muslims were actually watching him at the very time this thought or vision allegedly occurred to him, and he continued to participate in the prayer, so clearly his vision was not of any real event happening directly in front of him. After all, how could it be real? No one else could see it, and the Day of Judgment still has not even happened yet to send anyone to Hell! Here is the main hadith backing up the analysis in this paragraph and in the prior paragraph: http://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/131 (Bukhari 7:62:125).

Also note that the Arabic in these hadiths can also imply the “largest group” (plurality) or simply a large group, not strictly a “majority” (>50%). This is backed up by another version of this exact same hadith incident, which simply states in this same section, “I saw you [women] in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell”, which is not even an indication of plurality, let alone majority. This hadith is linked here: http://sunnah.com/muslim/1/147 (Muslim 1:142).

Moreover, in Muslim 4:1926 (http://www.sunnah.com/muslim/8/4) and Nasa’i 19:1576 (http://www.sunnah.com/nasai/19/20), the message is again different and again in complete contradiction of the “majority are women” version that Islamophobes love. Here it warns, “Most of you/them [the group of women he addressed] are the fuel of Hell”. After this warning to get their attention, Muhammad balanced his words with lighter jesting and hyperboles, as covered in the other hadith versions above. Note that in both of these linked hadith versions there is no indication of women being the majority in Hell at all. Muhammad was only referring to the majority of those he was addressing, who were 100% women!

Note also how the present tense is used in these last two hadith versions, implying Hell is neither fate nor destiny, as Islamophobes and misogynists claim. There is a clear option to commit to making oneself better (and not to be deserving of Hell) still open to all of them. The proof of this message is in the women’s generous giving of alms from their own jewelry right after he spoke to them. Furthermore, note how there is no mention at all of his vision of Hell in both hadith versions. He is extrapolating only from behaviors that he has seen in his community. In other words, he’s not speaking based on any vision of the future at all, which seriously calls into question this alleged “vision” per other hadith versions. And finally, note how the only criteria for Hell are simple behaviors that can easily be fixed and have nothing to do with being a woman at all.

In almost all of the hadith versions on this incident, note in particular what caught Muhammad’s attention most. It was the number of ungrateful women in the explicit context of speaking only to women, without men being present. This is quite significant, since the word “Kafir” is literally defined by the Quran to mean someone who is ungrateful (and actively rejecting God, not just passively “lacking belief”). So, in other words, being deserving of Hell has nothing to do with merely being a woman, but 22 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication everything to do with being ungrateful (i.e., a Kafir, as defined by the Quran), which is clearly a choice, not a gender.

IX.

Your Fiqh Fixation and Cherrypicked Medieval & Middle East Mullahs

Moving on to Section 6 (p. 14) of your rebuttal, you assert the bizarre implication that fiqh is something more than just man-made law per Muslims themselves. As man-made law, fiqh clearly has no permanency, nor can it gain any legitimate acceptance if it is contradicted by Islam (i.e. Scripture). You make the recurring and predictable error of conflating fiqh with sharia, even though the former is widely understood by Muslims to come from human beings, and the latter from God. Yes, fiqh is sometimes called “Islamic jurisprudence” and even lazily slapped with a “sharia” label to promote its legitimacy, but this only implies jurisprudence that should be in conformance with Islam (even though it often isn’t), not jurisprudence from God that defines Islam or sharia.

Fiqh, like all man-made law, varies drastically across the world. Usually, the only time politicians desperately try to conflate fiqh under the “sharia” umbrella is when a state is based on theocracy, which is totally against Islam. This conflation is designed to give man-made law the false legitimacy of God’s law – one of the oldest and most obvious tricks in the medieval playbook, and from even centuries before that. Are you saying that you were seriously fooled by this overt political propaganda, Peter?

Now that’s more than a bit embarrassing, don’t you agree?

You also imply the absurd claim once again that the Quran can effectively be ignored in defining Islam: It is clear from these examples that in the formulation of legal rulings the Qur’an can sometimes be regarded as a source of secondary importance and ignored. (p. 15) Well, yeah, this deliberate ignorance of the Quran in formulating man-made law happens in the U.S. and Europe too, along with just about every Muslim-majority country! Why? Because political, economic, and cultural variables rule in politics, not Islam. Just because a country has a majority of Muslims does not mean the non-religious variables affecting the legal system are really any different or less impactful.

By promoting an obvious association fallacy between what agenda-driven governments do and what Islam actually teaches, you desperately try, but miserably fail, to redefine Islam according to whatever political wind is currently blowing. This is utterly nonsensical, not to mention an embarrassingly juvenile approach to academic analysis of a major world religion. But I suppose you already knew that, right?

It is interesting to note that we both essentially agree that the only relevant and available sources on our debate topic (and Islam in general) are the Quran, the hadiths, and the Sira. I even made a deliberate point to cover every relevant Quran, hadith and Sira fact on our debate topic –unlike you, who ignored just about every last one. Yet in spite of that undeniable reality, you have the audacity to claim that all of my fact-driven analysis from these sources is essentially irrelevant, as discussed above, per your own quotes. You also have the audacity to claim that I “rubbish” Sira and “disregard” one critical hadith, which I clearly don’t and will get to later.

So if the only relevant sources on this debate topic are declared by your fatwa to be irrelevant, then what do you possibly have left to substitute in their place? As I predicted, there is only one place left for you to run and hide, and that’s behind the coattails of those medieval mullahs on politicians’ payrolls.

That’s where all Islamophobes go as a last refuge. I’ve seen it too many times to count.

23 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication Like the propagandist Robert Spencer, who is paid well into the six figures by Zionist lobbyists to spew his lies, you run to that 14th century tertiary source, Reliance of the Traveler, by al-Misri. You probably would have gone with Ibn Kathir if I hadn’t exposed him in my book as the politically-funded, medieval Heresy Inquisitor that he truly was. As for al-Misri, he was a lifelong Sufi; yet, ironically, Sufis don’t even recognize him. Only some within the Shafi’I branch of the Sunni branch of Muslims recognize his work, which is at most less than 30% of all Muslims worldwide. But once again you trumpet your appeal to authority fallacy in a flailing attempt to legitimize him, by stating as follows: This is the only legal reference in English sanctioned by the most prestigious theological institution in the Sunni Muslim world namely Al-Azhar University in Cairo. (p. 15) Never mind that this al-Azhar “sanction” does not mean a blanket endorsement of everything that they publish, and never mind that al-Misri was conveniently a fellow Egyptian, not a Muslim representing Islam for the entire world.

What is even more embarrassing is that you quote essentially the full passage from this tertiary source to support your claim that Islam permits beating women, yet there are ZERO facts from Islam and ZERO analysis of any facts supporting this claim by al-Misri! It seems al-Misri wasn’t even taught the very basics of how to formulate a logical argument. Yet like a glue-sniffing, wide-eyed zealot, you somehow find this blind, fact-free fatwa from a medieval guy that we know almost nothing about actually compelling to you! Are you serious, Peter? Are you willing to rest your case on this tertiary trash source written three-quarters of a millennium after the Quran came into existence? Apparently, the answer to that question is a resounding, ‘YES –I’m a believer in al-Misriism!’

[T]here is no getting away from the fact that the jurists operating at the highest possible level in the Muslim world upholds the legitimacy of wife beating according to the shari’a. So does Islam allow the beating of wives? It most certainly does, as is expressed above in the Reliance of the Traveler, and the statement of the International Fiqh Academy. (p. 17) So, in effect, you are now explicitly defining Islam as nothing more than man-made, fact-free fatwas, three quarters of a millennium after the Quran, which you desperately want to believe in and promote as “Islamic” truth. You have no idea how delicious the irony of your irrational fanaticism is to me.

As for the “International Fiqh Academy”, which you also cite so devotedly, they advocate only the “hankie/miswak” “beating”. This is a favorite interpretation of many Muslim scholars, which I resoundingly debunk as utter nonsense. As I showed in my analysis, there is not even one single hadith supporting this idiotic “light beating” with a “miswak”. However, there actually is a hadith where Muhammad himself stated he would be punished by God on the Day of Judgment if he were even to hit a servant woman with a tiny little miswak! Now how ironic is that? So what “Islamic” source (i.e., paymaster) was this politically-funded organization following exactly if not the Quran, hadiths or even Sira, which explicitly contradict their laughable fatwa that you find so compelling? Please do tell, Peter.

You also make this claim about me: Observing, therefore, that wife beating is official Islamic teaching is not a logical fallacy as Mr Chameleon so confidently asserts, it is simply the observation of verifiable data. (p. 17)

24 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication You continue to demonstrate complete ignorance of what a “logical fallacy” is, as explained above, and you do so by falsely attributing a claim to me once again. I never said a factual observation was a logical fallacy. It only transforms into a logical fallacy per your context when you logically assert a claim about how to define Islam based on the behavioral observations and statements of criminals and tyrants that the Quran actually condemns.

You also rightly condemn the insufficient prosecution of domestic violence cases in theocratic states, but you do so in the most ironic of ways: The emphasis of prosecuting authorities in such cases will be on the fact that punishment was excessive, instead of arguing that such punishment should not have occurred at all. These sharia rulings therefore continue to act as a blight on the lives of Muslim women around the world. (p. 17, my emphasis in bold) You severely scold such authorities for not “arguing that such punishment should not have occurred at all”, yet you declare a fatwa of irrelevance against exactly those arguments in my book! I must say, Peter, you are providing me with a veritable buffet of irrational irony to publicly ridicule. Please do send my regards to the chef who scrambled your brain.

But the ironic self-humiliation continues with these gems, where you pretend to gnash your teeth in your Conclusion – in bold highlight, no less -- over the blight on Muslim women caused by Quran 4:34, the true meaning of which you previously declared to be irrelevant!

In short, people are suffering terribly because of this verse. (p. 26) In short an ideology and a book are being subjected to legitimate criticism. (p. 26) After completely avoiding all – yes, ALL – of my analysis on verse 4:34 proving that it does not say what you claim it says, you have the audacity to make these claims as your bold-highlighted Conclusion?!

Even worse, you claim that it is you who is subjecting the Quran and this verse to “legitimate criticism” when you have, by your own admission, 100% ignored ALL of my analysis on this verse and ALL of my Quran-based interpretation of it. This is the very height of flagrant hypocrisy. And, yes Peter, we are all laughing at you and your bare-naked propaganda. Can your humiliation get any worse? Let’s find out.

You also try your hand at cherrypicked survey data with this quote: In a major research study by the Pew Foundation on Religion in Public Life (the largest ever undertaken in the Muslim world) it was found that a majority of Muslims in South Asia (84%), Southeast Asia (77%), the Middle East and North Africa (74%) and Sub-Saharan Africa (64%) would like to see shari’a enshrined as the ‘law of the land’, or would like to see shari’a significantly influencing the laws of their own societies. In other words, many Muslims would of their own volition choose to live under a system in which domestic violence would be normalised and legal. Observing this fact has nothing to do with some mythical ‘phobia’ as Mr Chameleon would insist but, again, merely the noting of a verifiable state of affairs. (p. 18) Gallup did a similar extremely expansive poll of Muslims worldwide, but what they actually found was that Muslims overwhelmingly want democracy and reject theocracy. They only want sharia incorporated into a democracy, since that reflects their personal values. This does not mean that they want theocracy or that they want to endorse wife-beating, per your ridiculous non-sequitur fallacy. You 25 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication also blithely ignore that Americans are surprising not that different from most Muslims, per the same Gallup survey questions: • Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation.

• Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran.

(From http://www.gallup.com/poll/104731/muslims-want-democracy-theocracy.aspx) So are Christian Americans guilty of wanting to kill and enslave innocent men, women and children too, given that this is how the Bible models the actions of the righteous, as quoted above and in many other Biblical quotes? According to your logic, they certainly are, but not to mine.

Other than the fact that the Quran never advocates or permits injustice (as universally defined), the greater point that Islamophobes willfully ignore is how Muslims worldwide define “sharia”. It is far and away not how histrionic fear mongers like you define it. As nearly every Muslim knows, the vast majority of “sharia” has to do with personal ethics and values, not politics, and certainly not theocracy, contrary to your propaganda delusions. Gallup makes this point clear too, as discussed in more detail in this document, with hard stats to back up this conclusion, in contrast to your bald claims. http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/GALLUPMUSLIMSTUDIESIslamandDemocracy030607.pdf

X.

My “Creeping Sharia Threat” Challenge to Fear Mongers like You

I also issued a challenge in my opening debate document to provide just one example of sharia per the Quran stipulating a punishment for any private immorality. I will point out now that you totally failed to meet this challenge even though you effectively counterclaimed against it. As everyone knows, punishment is the key criterion in distinguishing legal wrongs (punished in this world) from merely moral wrongs (punished in the hereafter). I also commonly issue another challenge to Islamophobes to show me just one public immorality (like murder or theft) that is punishable per the Quran that is not universally punished (or nearly so) across the entire civilized world when not in a state of lawless war.

So far no one has been able to meet that challenge either. Now how ironic is that?

As for the legal punishments themselves for these universal wrongs, the Quran is quite clear that each faith community should follow its own prescribed punishments (laws), which goes far beyond the freedom of religion permitted in democracies today. This means that sharia punishments can only apply to Muslims, never to non-Muslims. The only requirement (per verse 9:29) is that these universal prohibitions (e.g., against murder) are legally enforced by society (i.e., via some form of deterrent punishment).

This is the source of the confusion, by the way, for stoning for adultery, which is an example that you raised too. Without a doubt, this is a Biblical, not Islamic, punishment, as both the Quran and hadiths attest to for those who study them properly. Muhammad was asked by Jews on more than one occasion to pass a judgment on other Jews who committed adultery. Even though on one occasion the Jews tried to hide it, he pointed them to the stoning verse per the Bible, which of course completely 26 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication contradicts the Quran. This is because the Quran obligated him (per verses 5:40-50) to judge according to the Torah, not per the Quran, when Jews ask him to be their judge. Incidentally, this is a prime example of why hadith-venerating Muslims, who elevate hadiths to Scripture and a source of God’s Law (even overriding the Quran) are so embarrassingly wrong.

In short, sharia is only for Muslims, and this extreme example of Muhammad judging Jews per the legal standard of the Torah/Bible – in total contradiction of the Quran – proves it beyond any doubt. So if all legal wrongs (crimes) per the Quran are already legal wrongs punished worldwide, and if all legal punishments per the Quran apply to Muslims only, and if no private immoralities per the Quran are legally punishable, then what the hell is all this “creeping sharia threat” fear mongering and hysteria about? Can you please enlighten us, Peter?

XI.

More “Personal Islam” Smears and Your Pathetic Fact-Averse Rebuttal

I love how you start off this section 7 by defining “personal Islam”: In a previous discussion with Mr Chameleon I stated that I am not interested in debating what I termed his ‘personal Islam’. By that I meant the approach sometimes taken by Muslim apologists to pick and choose from the early Islamic tradition only those elements that they agree with, while discarding the rest as unreliable or irrelevant. (p. 18) It seems the only one guilty of staunchly defending a “personal Islam” position is you, Peter, per your own definition. As your rebuttal proves, you could not come up with even a single fact that I did not address, analyze and incorporate into my conclusion with respect to the question and topic being debated. In fact, I have incorporated EVERY known fact on this topic from the Quran, hadiths and Sira that could possibly rebut my conclusion, without any “picking and choosing” whatsoever. If you disagree, then I hereby challenge you to prove me wrong.

Oh, but wait, you already tried to do that with two facts, one from Sira that you didn’t even bother to address or analyze yourself, and another from hadiths. Let’s cover those next.

1. The Debunked Sira Incident that You Embarrassingly Cite and Get All Wrong You claim that my argument here relies on “rubbishing the work of Ibn Ishaq [the Sira] as unreliable”.

This is undeniably false. Even though I only said hadiths (not Sira) could be considered a prior to be “reasonably accurate” (i.e., unless proven otherwise), I still gave the full benefit of the doubt on this Sira fact. I then proceeded to completely eviscerate its reliability by showing that no less than SEVEN independent sahih Bukhari and sahih Muslim hadiths totally contradict the specific words in dispute in this Sira. As you well know, this Sira story has absolutely no chain of narration attached to it, unlike all seven of the sahih Bukhari and sahih Muslim hadiths. In short, even by traditional scholarly standards, such a Sira story is less reliable than even the weakest of accepted hadiths. Also, the obviously interpolated clause that only exists in the Sira version and is omitted from all seven sahih hadith versions means it has no reliability whatsoever with respect to this interpolated clause.

But that is not the funniest part of your rebuttal. Even as is, this Sira incident has no Sunnah applicability whatsoever, since it was not an action of Muhammad, nor was it any action that he showed any approval of. And most important of all, contrary to your embarrassing claim, it had nothing at all to 27 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication do with wife-beating and verse 4:34! It was about beating a servant (Burayra) by a third party when such a beating was totally out of place and would be unequivocally counterproductive in the context given that Burayra was fully cooperative and prepared to answer any questions and had nothing to hide.

Now let’s contrast this reality against your words attesting to your embarrassing willful ignorance and fanaticism with respect to obvious facts: He therefore rubbishes the work of Ibn Ishaq as unreliable and states that this passage of his sira that describes ‘wife beating’ should be disregarded because of it not corresponding to other versions of the story. (pp. 18-19, my emphasis in bold) Once again, Peter, there was no “wife-beating” whatsoever in this story under any version, even per the Sira passage where you seem to hallucinate that it somehow exists! Whoops.

You also make this bizarre claim: As such his sira is widely respected throughout the Muslim world. Airily dismissing Ibn Ishaq as unreliable therefore puts Mr Chameleon significantly at odds with the wider Muslim community.

The only one “significantly at odds with the wider Muslim community” here is you, Peter. Sira are only respected by a significant portion of Muslims as a source of personal guidance where stories resonate as true to Muslims in the context of Islam as a whole. However, to assert that Muslims widely read Sira literature or that traditional Muslim scholars ”widely” respect Sira as a reliable source of Law in Islam is nonsense. Sira stories are read by a small minority of Muslims and generally have no chain of transmission whatsoever, which makes them less reliable, on average, than the weakest of hadiths.

And, yes, Ibn Ishaq did his work about 100 years after the Quran was revealed, but there are no surviving copies of his work at all. We only have secondary sources like Ibn Hisham and Tabari who quoted and edited his work in part much later, around the same time hadiths were recorded, as I discussed in my opening debate document.

2. The One and Only Debate Fact That You Rebut – and AGAIN Get All Wrong So now we are down to the one and only fact of mine that you actually did cite and try to rebut in your favor: the Farewell Sermon hadith per Muslim 7:2803. You start by stating a flagrant lie against my argued position as follows: Bizarrely Mr Chameleon chooses to disregard this very uncomfortable text in Sahih Muslim and quotes a different version in Ibn Ishaq, more favourable to his case, with approval (this is the same Ibn Ishaq who is treated with disdain in another part of his document). A classic case of ‘having your cake and eating it’! Not only does he reject the Sahih Muslim version of the sermon (supposedly the earlier and therefore more reliable one) he also then goes on to provide a lengthy argument as to why Sahih Muslim’s version is the so-called ‘smoking gun’ that led to the wrong interpretation of Qur’an 4:3438. So far from treating this text at the heart of Muslim tradition as ‘reasonably accurate’ his entire case depends upon rejecting Sahih Muslim in this instance and blaming it for centuries of faulty exegesis of Qur’an for 4:34. (p. 19, my emphasis in bold).

Not only did I not ignore this hadith, I quoted it just like you did, and I spent quite a long time analyzing it in an entire chapter dedicated to it and other versions of this same narrated incident. As I stated, one 28 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication of the main reasons its reliability can be questioned and severely doubted is that it is over 2,200 words long per the English translation! This is far longer than the Ibn Ishaq version. Considering that hadiths were transmitted orally and recorded a quarter of a millennium later, one would have to assume superhuman transmitters across the entire chain to conclude that material errors did not creep into the text, even under the best of intentions. Note that hadiths were overwhelmingly not memorized wordby-word like the Quran, and almost all hadiths are orders of magnitude shorter than this hadith.

But yet another lie is the second bolded quote above, where you say “his entire case depends upon rejecting Sahih Muslim in this instance”. You double down on this lie again with a quote on the following page 20, and again on page 23: In his rejection of Sahih Muslim Mr Chameleon places himself entirely at odds with Muslim tradition that accepts the text of Muhammad’s farewell sermon as it appears in Sahih Muslim as a reliable record of what the prophet said before he died. He cannot do otherwise, because if he accepts this hadith his entire case falls flat. In light of this I believe that my accusation of him following a kind of ‘personal Islam’ through selective rejection of portions of Ibn Ishaq and Sahih Muslim that he does not like can be sustained. This is devastating from an ‘outsider’ perspective as it definitively confirms that Mr Chameleon cannot prove his case while remaining within the accepted Islamic historical tradition and treating it as ‘reasonably accurate’ as he claimed he would be able to do. (p. 20, my emphasis in bold) It [i.e., “reinterpretation of Qur’an 4:34”] is based on wholesale rejection of large parts of accepted Islamic tradition [In other words, apparently “large parts” means this one isolated hadith, since no other primary source facts were cited by you to support this claim]. (p. 23, my comments in brackets) These claims of yours are flat out wrong, and proof that you are lying, unless your pathetic excuse is that you simply didn’t bother to read what you were rebutting. If it is the latter, then this would be quite a humiliating admission of your willful ignorance, which is no better. Even if we take this hadith at face value “as is” and assume that it is “reasonably accurate”, per my a priori assumption, it still provides no support whatsoever for a “beat” interpretation of verse 4:34! Below is the key argument from my opening document that you blithely ignored: Take a look at what comes before the permission to “beat” [DRB] per the Muslim [7:2803 hadith] version, which is therefore the condition or criterion to determine when such a “beating” could be permissible: “they [your wives] should not allow anyone to sit/lie on your bed linens whom you do not like.” What this condition and the following sentence are basically saying in a euphemistic manner (given the traditional DRB translation) is the following: ‘If your wife sleeps with another man, you have the permission to have her beaten.’ So doesn’t this support the traditional interpretation of verse 4:34? No, absolutely not! If that were the interpretation, then verse 4:34 would not apply, but rather verse 24:2, since this would be adultery! Moreover, the DRB root would not apply, but rather the JLD root (per verse 24:2) meaning “lash/flog”. The ultimate absurdity of the traditional interpretation is highlighted by the same exact punishment being applicable upon guilty husbands. In other words, if a husband is found guilty of sleeping with another woman outside of wedlock, then his wife likewise has the full “permission” from none other than God to have him lashed/flogged as well!

29 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication (p. 79 of my opening debate doc/book) I then showed per other hadith versions of this same Farewell Sermon that this manifest (proven) sexual obscenity/adultery criterion is made even more explicit with the fahisha mubina phrase, which directly ties to the criterion for adultery in both verses 24:2 and 4:15-16. In other words, Muslim 7:2803, even at face value while assuming it is still “reasonably accurate”, is stating absolutely nothing about “beating” except reiterating the penalty for public sexual obscenity of married individuals, which applies just as much to men as it does to women! Sorry, Peter, but there is no escape from this irrefutable logic. Here is a further quote of mine from my Conclusion making this same point quite emphatically, which you completely ignored: Unfortunately, as should be expected, these falsely interpreted hadiths do indeed contain a glaringly interpolated sentence that is completely absent from other versions of this Farewell Sermon. The meaning of the DRB root became grotesquely transformed into “beat” in verse 4:34 only because these hadiths blatantly conflated the words of verse 4:34 with the words of verses 4:15-16. These hadiths did so by making the “beating” (i.e., the DRB step of separation) contingent not upon nushuz per verse 4:34, but upon the commission of manifest/open sexual obscenity (fahisha mubina) per verses 4:15-16. These are two vastly different criteria that cannot possibly be conflated together.

What is perhaps most absurdly ironic about the interpolated sentence in these hadiths is that one could argue that the hadiths are not even really wrong when taken strictly at traditional face value, which assumes that the DRB root could indeed magically transform into a word for physical punishment. Why? Because there already is a physical punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse, which these hadiths are unambiguously describing. Even when a man is guilty of fahisha mubina, he too would be flogged/beaten as the punishment for his actions! In the same way that these hadiths imply a physical punishment for women because of sexual transgression, the exact same physical punishment would apply to men when they commit this sexual transgression, per verses 4:15-16 and verse 24:2.

So whether something was interpolated or not into these hadiths is actually a completely moot point. If these hadiths are interpreted strictly at traditional face value (i.e., with the interpolation and with DRB=”beat”), then they become nothing more than a reiteration of the existing punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse. In that case, they add absolutely nothing to what the Quran already states in verses 4:15-16 and verse 24:2 with respect to this punishment, which is applicable equally, without discrimination, to both women and men. (pp. 96-97 of my opening debate doc/book) So, as I just proved, Peter, you can totally ignore the undeniable lack of reliability of Muslim 7:2803 and how two independent verses of the Quran were demonstrably conflated together over a quarter millennium within this 2,200+ word hadith. It ironically makes no difference to my rebuttal. Even if we hypothetically assume that this hadith is still “reasonably accurate” as is, and even if we translate the DRB root as “beat” in here, it adds absolutely nothing to your opposing argument. It then becomes just a restatement of the penalty for manifest (public) sexual obscenity, which applies 100% to men as well!

30 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication Before leaving this gross misrepresentation of my views, I would like to remind you, for the record, what I stated about hadiths being “reasonably accurate” a priori until proven otherwise. This is what I first stated: “I will even allow you to assume that these hadiths are reasonably accurate, even if not perfect” (per my pre-debate Reply #1). Note the key words "allow YOU", not ‘allow US’. I also specified hadiths, not Sira here. In my pre-debate Reply #2, I expanded upon this assumption to apply it to my arguments too, but this is how I worded it: I even allowed the a priori assumption (unless logically demonstrated otherwise in debate) that such hadiths are "reasonably accurate". I don't want anyone to argue that I can only debate this topic by excluding hadiths. I also want to make sure that it is clear that my position (and the Quran's) on hadiths essentially has nothing to do with this debate, since I am willing to debate as if the hadiths are scriptural sources, just as you requested. You can even bring in Sira on this topic too. In other words, bring everything you've got to win. (per my pre-debate Reply #2) In other words, Peter, your embarrassing attempt to project your lame “picking and choosing” “personal Islam” smear onto me is an epic fail.

XII.

The Ad hominem Fallacy of “Agenda-Driven Reinterpretations”

The predictable and desperate last resort of all losing arguments is the ad hominem fallacy, which is designed to deflect from the facts and logic on the table by trying to discredit the debater (and those on the debater’s side) instead. Ironically, the main ad hominem argument you use is an extremely misogynistic one, which is that women are fundamentally biased and can’t be trusted: The question has to be asked as to what drives the new interpretation: A close and careful reading of the text, or the promotion of a certain agenda? With this in mind I did a thorough review of the scholarly literature advocating a revisionist reading of Qur’an 4:34. What I found was that an overwhelming majority of scholarly articles on this topic were written by women, many of whom self-identified as feminist. Many of these authors are quite open about the fact that it was either their feminism, or their desire to combat gender-based violence that led them to consider a new interpretation of the text. (p. 20, my emphasis in bold) The irony of your misogynistic ad hominem fallacy descends to levels of slapstick absurdity given that you deliberately avoided and discarded as irrelevant 100% of the “close and careful reading of the text” that I provided in an extremely detailed analysis. So what you are implying is that according to your own dichotomy and standard of academic scholarship, you have quite ironically painted yourself guilty as self-charged of “promotion of a certain agenda”. Whoops.

And the irony gets even better, if that is even possible. Literally, every translation and tafsir since medieval times that I am aware of supporting a “beat” or similar translation has been produced by males. Yet you fail to point out the obvious misogyny bias here, in spite of the fact that this sample size is quite large and actually statistically significant, unlike the very rare interpretations by women, which have essentially no statistical significance at all.

31 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication You ask again on the next page (21), “Does the text or an agenda drive the interpretation? I would suggest that eisegesis of the latter kind played at least some role in the conclusions that Mr Chameleon reached.” First of all, if it is eisegesis rather than exegesis, then you have already answered your own idiotically loaded question! However, if you meant to say exegesis, then my obvious question is, “Hello…Peter, are you there? That’s why I provided such an extensive analysis of the text.”

If you now agree that analyzing the text is so critical, since that is what defines Islam, then why were you completely incompetent to address (let alone rebut) even one of my arguments related to what the text actually says? Your projection of your own propaganda hate agenda has become beyond obvious, Peter.

Instead of “suggesting” the role of my “agenda” and a lack of compelling textual analysis behind my conclusions, then PROVE IT. I gave you a literal mountain of textual analysis to rebut, yet you ignored ALL of it.

Your ad hominem and other fallacies continue unabated in the next paragraph: Mr Chameleon freely admits that the translation of DRB in this verse was held to be ‘beat’ or ‘strike’ for more than 1000 years. What changed? Were there significant new linguistic discoveries that necessitated a new look at the text? I would suggest, on the contrary, that what changed was the encounter of Muslims with Western Enlightenment values under which domestic violence is abhorred. In these circumstances Muslims in the West have every reason to seek alternative interpretations. Revisionist readings of this text are therefore an overwhelmingly Western-based phenomenon with Muslims living in the West seeking to reconcile their faith with the prevailing culture around them.

I also thoroughly addressed these points in my book, which you again blithely ignored. One of my key analyses was in documenting the etymological fallacy behind the translation of the DRB root as “beat”.

You also extend your ad hominem fallacy by saying “Muslims with Western Enlightenment values” (especially those who are women) are inherently biased and therefore can’t be trusted in interpreting Islamic texts. What you are saying is that anyone who takes a look at these texts with fresh eyes cannot be trusted either. Only medieval and Middle East mullahs on politicians’ payrolls can be trusted in your view (per your endless appeal to authority fallacies). And given that they have essentially ZERO analysis backing up their bald claims on verse 4:34, you trust these mullahs implicitly and fanatically. Now how ironic is that?

This leads into the other issue that you brought up, as quoted above: “Mr Chameleon freely admits that the translation of DRB in this verse was held to be ‘beat’ or ‘strike’ for more than 1000 years. What changed?” The better question to ask about this 1,000+ years is the one that I emphasized in my book, and then above in bold, and which I repeat once again in bold here: Why have Muslim “scholars” for over a millennium been totally at odds with THEIR OWN GOLD STANDARD of exegetical tradition, which is interpreting the Quran with the Quran? As I stated emphatically in my book, NOT ONE scholar ever in history has applied this simple and straightforward gold standard of tafsir to come to the conclusion that “beat” is the correct translation for verse 4:34.

NOT ONE. How could such tragic incompetence in scholarship occur? The only credible answer is a very long history of flagrant misogyny and taqlid amongst Muslim scholars, who have almost without exception been male.

32 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication Will you ignore this undeniable debunking of your “personal Islam” smear yet again? Or will you concede that traditional scholars utterly failed according to their own gold standard of tafsir, which is what you call “the ultimate interpretive principle in interpreting an ancient text” (p. 20).

You also ridicule the democratization of knowledge by invoking the juvenile “Dar al-Cyber Islam” propaganda moniker, extending your ad hominem fallacy to essentially every Muslim active on the Internet. According to you, they too cannot be trusted or they’re just superficial, lying propagandists trying to fool people. However, whether you admit it or not, the undeniable reality is that the Internet does indeed open up the analysis of the Quran to a whole new set of fresh minds to study it at a deeply analytical level devoid of traditional cultural baggage. Even better, this deep analysis can be fully grasped, challenged and debated by those who don’t even need to know Arabic by referencing those same online tools, such as multiple online translators, dictionaries, grammar references, advanced search tools, www.corpus.quran.com, www.sunnah.com, etc. Frankly, this massive democratization of Islamic knowledge across the globe and at everyone’s fingertips is completely unprecedented in history.

So, yes, this is another change, and it is a very big deal indeed.

Also, contrary to your claim, one does not see challenges to traditional Muslim scholarship coming only out of Muslims in the West. This is utter nonsense. These challenges are coming from everywhere, and they actually started in earnest at the beginning of the 20th century in the East with the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire and the decentralization of scholastic authority. This is well documented by doctoral researchers such as Daniel Brown.

But let’s keep moving on. Your logical fallacies around “reinterpreting Islam” just don’t stop. You then invoke a false dichotomy fallacy: For some of these ‘elites’ the version of Islam that they are pushing harks back to purist or fundamentalist interpretations of the foundational texts. For others, however, the project that they have in mind is nothing less than a wholesale reinterpretation of the core tenets of Islam itself. (p. 21) This assertion relies on the false dichotomy premise that oppressive, puritanical interpretations rely on a literal, word-by-word interpretation, whereas any significant reinterpretations rely on playing lazy and loose with the text and discarding literal interpretations. As I proved in my very literal word-by-word, “fundamentalist” analysis of the source texts, not one literal fact from all of these texts can support the “beat” interpretation of verse 4:34. The grand irony is that the traditional misogynistic interpretations simply cannot withstand logical scrutiny. Instead, they rely on logical fallacies, such as fact-free appeals to popularity and antiquity. Most ironic of all, it is undeniably the misogynistic interpretations that have been playing lazy and loose with primary source texts all along.

You seem to love false dichotomy fallacies, by the way. Here is another from your Conclusion: What should the logical and rational response of a campaigner against domestic violence (as Mr Chameleon claims to be) to this state of affairs be? Should it be to help the women who are suffering because of this verse? Or should it be to protect and whitewash the ideology?

You set up a false dichotomy between fighting domestic violence and debunking lies against Islam based on the bigoted premise that any defense of Islam must be a “whitewash” of it. Do normal people actually buy into this bullshit logic, Peter? Or do you just not get out much from your propaganda echo 33 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication chamber, where everyone chants in agreement to the hate that you feed them every 10 minutes or so like clockwork?

You continue your absurd “laissez-faire” Islam projection onto me on the very next page: This is one of those rare instances when a believer feels that he/she stands on a different and higher moral plane than that which the sacred scripture prescribes.” For many others this kind of laissez-faire approach to the teachings of the Qur’an is a bridge too far in terms of accommodating Islam to Western values and they, therefore, seek to bring the Qur’an up-todate by showing that traditional interpretations had been wrong all along. Mr Chameleon clearly positioned himself in this category. (p. 22, my emphasis in bold) The only one guilty of “laissez-faire” Islam is you, Peter, just as you are the one trying to “stand on a different and higher moral plane than that which the sacred scripture prescribes”. You are fanatically defending against any interference with the status quo of laissez-faire misogyny. I appropriately describe your behavior as “fanatical” because you staunchly defend the status quo misogyny claim without any facts to back you up, particularly from “a close and careful reading of the text”, which you ironically tout as being so critically important to a winning argument. Instead you rely on a silly argument from incredulity fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity ). Logically, who is the one truly on the moral high ground here? The one who cites detailed analytical support from “that which the sacred scripture prescribes”, or the one (i.e., you) who runs like a bare naked propaganda loon from ALL textual analysis and can’t rebut a single opposing argument based upon it?

I also adore your hypocritical appeal to “Western values” as some sort of grand imperative for “reinterpretation”: For the inhabitants of ‘Dar al-Cyber Space’ like Mr Chameleon the sanctioning of domestic violence by Islam is a particularly embarrassing issue since it is so clearly at odds with modern Western values. Some Western Muslim interpreters try to get around this embarrassment by advocating that Muslims simply ignore texts like these.

That's odd. I never knew being against domestic violence was a "Western value". For centuries, Christian theologians in the West have advised women to bear domestic violence as part of God's will.

In fact, there have effectively been no laws against it until quite recently in history. John Calvin said in the 16th century: We have a special sympathy for poor women who are evilly and roughly treated by their husbands, because of the roughness and cruelty of the tyranny and captivity which is their lot.

We do not find ourselves permitted by the Word of God, however, to advise a woman to leave her husband, except by force of necessity; and we do not understand this force to be operative when a husband behaves roughly and uses threats to his wife, nor even when he beats her, but when there is imminent peril to her life . . . [W]e . . . exhort her to bear with patience the cross which God has seen fit to place upon her; and meanwhile not to deviate from the duty which she has before God to please her husband, but to be faithful whatever happens. ("Letter From Calvin to an Unknown Woman," June 4, 1559, Calvini Opera, XVII, col. 539, in P. E. Hughes, editor, The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin [Eerdmans, 1966] , pp. 344-345).

34 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication And Debi Pearl said in the 21st century: When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer, it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering.

Unfortunately, their secular counterparts aren't any better. When a Swedish man was charged with sexual assault against his underage girlfriend, he was acquitted because it was said that she "consented". Such cases are rampant throughout the “Western” world even when there is no marriage, as is evidenced by the hundreds of unprosecuted rape cases on university campuses and the thousands of domestic abuse cases that are not prosecuted either. More often than not, they are not even reported, since women consider such violence an accepted norm, not the exception. Ah, yes, those morally superior “Western values”.

XIII.

Your Fanatical Ad Populum Appeals and Other Bizarre Fallacies

In your final section 9 before your Conclusion (and at the end of section 8), you continue to make fanatical appeals to popular opinion and authority. I once again emphasize “fanatical” because you do so without any facts to back you up. Contrary to your implied claim, there is no evidence of broad and active scholarly promotion of domestic violence using verse 4:34. This is why the same 2-3 fact-free YouTube videos of loony Middle East mullahs on politicians’ payrolls keep coming up when I ask for this evidence.

The biggest problem by far amongst scholars is not their alleged promotion of domestic violence via Islam, but rather their extreme apathy. Scholars do so based on a strong desire simply to ignore verse 4:34. And when they’re pressed by Muslims for an answer on whether it actually means “beat”, they simply downplay it to clownish absurdity with their “hankie” or “miswak” “non-violent beating” interpretations, which I also thoroughly debunked in my analysis as lacking any primary source support whatsoever. In fact, one hadith explicitly contradicts even that “miswak” “non-violent beating”!

As for the “gates of ijtihad being closed”, this has not been the case since the early 20th century, as I discussed above. Now with the Internet very recently democratizing both information and analysis on Islam to a level even the best of scholars could only dream of centuries ago, those gates have been blown wide open, and never will they be closed again. I’m sorry to break this news to you, Peter, but the days of your favorite medieval and Middle East mullahs are numbered. Their gig is coming to an end. It’s only a matter of time.

Oddly, you desperately try to project your fanaticism onto me with outright lies, such as this quote about those who disagree with me: In his work Mr Chameleon suggests an alternative translation that points to physical separation instead of an act of domestic violence. He then goes on to make the proud claim that anybody who disagrees with him on this, based on the fact that Islamic tradition favours the ‘beat’ translation, is guilty of committing a serious logical fallacy. (pp. 23-24) So where did I “make the proud claim” about anybody who disagrees with me must be wrong? You are a bold-faced liar, Peter. What I actually said is this, per the Introduction of my document (p. 5):

35 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication All conclusions are my own, and I make no claim that they are inherently superior to anyone else’s. Nor do I even claim to be an “Islamic scholar” or have any other “professional Muslim” status or title. My opinions are completely irrelevant, even if I were not anonymous. Only my arguments are relevant, so rebut them if you can. As I am constantly reminded, I am a “nobody”, so I can be ignored. But my facts and logic most definitely cannot be ignored. They demand to be heard, and they demand a reply.

I welcome all feedback, especially on any demonstrable errors in my facts or logic. Since I am only human, there will no doubt be at least a few, no matter how many revisions I do.

Therefore, I ask for your forgiveness and God’s forgiveness whenever I am wrong. In short, never assume that I am correct, even though it is my full intention to be so. Always challenge and verify my arguments for yourself. That way we can all learn from each other.

Not only do I acknowledge that I could very well be wrong, but I state that I am almost certainly not 100% right, since I continue to find at least minor errors in my own work. The only fatwas and arrogant denials here are coming from you, Peter. Even after I totally eviscerated your opening arguments to the point that you declared your opening document null and void in our debate, you failed to express even an ounce of humility to admit where you were wrong. That’s why no one will ever consider you as academically credible. You are nothing but a two-bit propagandist. And deep down inside, you know it.

Ironically, you also repeatedly accused me of being “guilty of the fallacious use of ‘logical fallacy’ accusations”. This, of course, is nothing but a repetition fallacy, and an absurd one at that, since you did not rebut even one of my many fallacy accusations against you. Sorry, Peter, but simply repeating a bald claim won’t make it true.

You continue to make fanatical and fallacious appeals to authority (this time, to Arabic linguistic specialists) and to popular ignorance of Arabic to argue that fact-driven analysis about what the Arabic really says will never have any real relevance: About 20% of the population of the Muslim world have Arabic as a home language. Very few of these, however, have the skills to perform exegesis on the classical Arabic text of the Qur’an.

Most of them would assign meanings to different words in line with the teachings of their religious teachers. Given the conservative nature of religious education within the Arab world mother tongue speakers of Arabic would therefore overwhelmingly be told that DRB in Qur’an 4:34 means ‘to beat’. (p. 24) What you are forgetting in all of your blathering hogwash is that someone who doesn’t even know Arabic can validate essentially all of my analysis simply by referring to two web sites and using the generic tools and resources of the Internet (online dictionaries, translators, etc.). Moreover, only in a few instances with respect to hadiths would online dictionaries and translators even be required to see very obvious errors in translation. Someone who has essentially no knowledge of Arabic could easily validate my analysis or rebut it quite confidently if they chose to do so, since not one of my arguments relies fundamentally on my personal opinion about what the Arabic actually states. I challenge you to prove me wrong on any of my arguments.

You continue your fanatical appeal to popularity with this quote:

36 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication This means that even the majority of the tiny proportion of Muslim husbands who turn to English translations of the Qur’an for guidance will be faced with a command to commit acts of physical violence in the pages of their ‘holy book’. (p. 25) I preemptively rebutted this silly logical fallacy at the beginning of my document, which I know you read but once again failed to rebut: If a debate could be won by popularity alone, then this debate would already be over, as even many Muslims concede. But ad populum and ad verecundiam fallacies (as discussed below) are ultimately just that – fallacies. They carry zero weight in debate. My challenge to all those who invoke such fallacies is simple. Show me the analysis behind any of those 40 bandwagon translations that remotely compares to, let alone rebuts, the analysis that I have done here.

Bring me your best “winning” rebuttals. Based on my research, my guess is that you will find hardly any analysis behind those 40 translations beyond bald opinions and despotic fatwas. (p.

6-7).

We clearly don’t need to remind the readers that you utterly failed to respond to this challenge of mine or any other, Peter. When all those Muslims open up their English translations of verse 4:34, how many will be able to see analysis remotely equivalent to mine that backs up those translations? Answer: ZERO. Such in depth exegetical analysis supporting any “beat” or similar translation simply does not exist! Again, I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Your fanatical and fallacious appeals to authority and popularity continue with this quote, where you proceed to throw in a whole kitchen sink of other fallacies in a desperate attempt to make your propaganda stick (as highlighted with my comments in brackets): Mr Chameleon probably imagines that the proper response of ‘outsiders’ to his grammatical and exegetical arguments should be to conclude that Islam is against domestic violence. I have, however, pointed out that there can be a significant disconnect between ‘the Qur’an teaches’ and ‘Islam teaches’ [= equivocation fallacy, since the Quran undeniably defines Islam and cannot contradict it] and that it is not the job of outsiders to settle this internal Muslim dispute.

We simply comment on Islam as we see it [=association fallacy, since Islam cannot be defined merely by association with behaviors or bald claims of “Muslims”]. It should, furthermore, be clear that the overwhelming majority of Muslims encounter the Qur’an in ways that commands domestic violence [=ad populum fallacy combined with a repetition fallacy, since popular opinion can never override demonstrable doctrine to the contrary, and merely repeating the same bald claim that there is an “overwhelming majority” opinion won’t magically make it so].

In light of the above I will refrain from engaging in complex textual analysis [=selfcontradiction fallacy, since you already acknowledged how pivotal and critical this textual analysis is] and simply ask: Is there even the slightest chance that DRB in Qur’an 4:34 can mean ‘to beat’ [=loaded question fallacy, since it relies on the very same ad populum fallacy!]? If the answer to this is ‘yes’ (as it has to be in light of the fact that generations of Muslim scholars have been perfectly happy with this meaning [=appeal to authority and antiquity fallacies, since you are using these fallacies to avoid literally all of my fact-driven analysis presented]) then Mr Chameleon’s revisionism is unlikely to gain traction.

37 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication (p. 25-26, my emphasis in bold) Wow, that’s one huge mouthful of logical fallacies! I must say, Peter, you have at least impressed us here with your stunning ability to pack in so much propaganda bullshit in your mouth. It looks like you’re now going to have to swallow it all yourself like a champ, since no one else will.

XIV.

Voting on Our Debate

You continue to preen and posture about how scared I am of a vote on our debate when I am the one who wanted it from the very beginning and never suggested anything to the contrary. Your peacocking on this point is frankly bizarre, though admittedly somewhat entertaining. We all know why, of course, since it is your only possible redemption from a debate that you know you have miserably lost. What could possibly be a more humiliating admission of defeat than failing to rebut, let alone quote, the opposing arguments EVEN ONCE? As for the voting logistics, given that this entire debate has been on Twitter, the only relevant voters are those who are verified Twitter users. Otherwise, it becomes a ballot box stuffing exercise based on uninformed voters who have not been following along at all and who have not really read anything to speak of. I already have a poll set up using twtpoll.com, which can easily be replicated by a third party that we both agree on to manage this poll for us. If we cannot agree on a third party, then I suggest that we simply have two poll links, one from you and one from me. We should still try to agree on the polling questions, if possible. However, if we cannot, then so be it. We can still run separate polls. It will still be in both of our interests to point your 20,000 followers and my 850 followers to both polls, so I don’t see a huge issue if we do so, especially since each poll will only take a few seconds to answer.

Even before this debate started, I knew that I would likely not be able to persuade even a small portion of your followers, who are for the most part just propaganda junkies. As I proved in my attempted debates with many of them since I released my document, literally all they can do is regurgitate Internet memes that they cannot even defend. This makes sense, since all you feed them every ten minutes are the same dozen or so memes over and over again. Even worse, in essentially every case, they categorically refuse to read, let alone rebut, anything that I’ve written, and that’s in spite of their impassioned polemics to legitimize domestic violence like you do. Their willful ignorance, like yours, would be hilarious if it were not filled with such misogynistic and fanatical promotion of hatred.

Therefore, the only voting result that truly interests me, especially on an issue that only affects Muslims, is whether the majority of Muslims are convinced by my arguments. That vote is the only relevant predictor of whether my arguments will ultimately succeed in the long run as more Muslims become aware of them. That is why I will insist on a second question asking whether the voter is Muslim or nonMuslim. Of course you must agree, unless you are schizophrenic, since you said yourself that convincing “outsiders” on this topic is totally irrelevant: His main activity (pursued on a daily basis on Twitter) seem to be to tell outsiders ‘This is not what Islam teaches’. This is, as we have seen a ridiculous statement (and will remain so until Mr Chameleon can turn himself into a Martin Luther and take a significant proportion of the Muslim world with him). So instead of self-identifying as a Muslim reformer (and working all out to change the minds of thought-leaders in the Muslim world) he chooses to spend most of his time as an ‘Islamophobia Debunker’ by telling unbelievers that their observations are 38 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication inaccurate based on his ‘minority report’ that would be rejected by the vast majority of Muslims around the world. (p. 27, my emphasis in bold) Real Muslim women are, however, being beaten by husbands who believe that they have scriptural justification for this. Yet in spite of claiming to have the ‘golden key’ to relieve their suffering he devotes his time to talking to ‘outsiders’, telling them how wrong they are and that their accurate observations amount to a ‘phobia’. This is quixotic, strange and lacks compassion.

Perhaps in his world defending the reputation of Islam means a bit more than combatting domestic violence and alleviating real suffering after all. (p. 27) As part of your frothy ad hominem fallacy quoted here, you omit to mention, of course, that it is overwhelmingly only “outsiders”, not Muslims, who are actively promoting the “beat” interpretation on Twitter. I have done extensive searches on Twitter covering many months, and I don’t recall a single Muslim who has actively promoted this interpretation. At most, they defend against the fanatical legitimization of domestic violence by non-Muslim Islamophobes, and they usually do so by regurgitating the now 100% debunked “hankie” or “miswak” claptrap.

By contrast, there are literally hundreds of tweets by unambiguous “outsiders” who actively promote this “beat” interpretation of verse 4:34 on Twitter. Now how ironic is that? Also, you blithely omitted to mention that, when I do rebut these “outsiders”, it is overwhelmingly when they are verbally “beating up” on Muslims, almost always women. Unlike you, a fanatic legitimizer of domestic violence and other violence against women, I fight to defend such women against violence. I give them the “armor” of truth and religious legitimacy against fanatics like you and your followers who desperately try to convince them instead that men have a God-given legitimate right to beat them. I’m sorry to disappoint you, Peter, but I will not stop defending women against wife-beating enthusiasts like you, regardless of your transparent projection of misogynistic violence and callous hatred onto me: It must take a peculiar ability to ignore the sufferings of others for someone to primarily selfidentify as an ‘Islamophobia Debunker’ instead of a Muslim reformer on this issue. Then again, Chameleons are well known for their thick skins. (p. 27) I refer again to where you claimed just above (see same quote in bold) that my “‘minority report’ would be rejected by the vast majority of Muslims around the world.” And I point as well to similar claims that you made elsewhere in your document, quoted here, which I will address next: Large-scale acceptance would, therefore, depend on millions of Muslims developing a much more critical attitude toward the core texts of their religion. Given the state of Islamic religious education within the Muslim world itself (dominated as it is by highly conservative elements) this is unlikely to happen in the near future. (p. 23) So is domestic violence part and parcel of the Qur’an? Maybe not in the pristine imagined Qur’an that exists in the mind of Mr Chameleon and other Western revisionists but certainly in the Qur’an as it exists in the minds of the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world. Pointing this out is not a ‘logical fallacy’ but a simple statement of fact and until this changes anybody who says ‘The Qur’an does not permit the beating of wives’ is dealing in fantasy and not reality. (p. 25, my emphasis in bold)

39 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015

DRAFT: Not for Publication Well, we will now put your fanatical claims to the test quite simply by asking voters if they are Muslim or not, in addition to whether they agree with my core conclusion opposing a “beat” interpretation. By asking if voters are Muslim, this will settle the question of whether large scale acceptance of this analysis is possible at a grass roots level, which is where it truly matters in a post-theocratic world. Keep in mind, by the way, that these are not just your normal claims up for debate. You essentially declared the equivalent of an incontestable fatwa that these claims are “not a ‘logical fallacy’ but a simple statement of fact” (my emphasis in bold). How embarrassing indeed, then, if you were proven absolutely false on such a “simple statement of fact”! Now let’s find out what the real truth is.

XV.

Conclusion: It’s Time for You to Concede

Peter, after reading my thorough debunking and hopefully coming to terms with your utterly embarrassing failure to rebut it, you need to take a big step back and realize what you are truly up against here vs. what you expected coming into this debate. You thought you had a huge posse of medieval mullahs and translators on your side, but now you realize that they ALL have empty pockets, with absolutely nothing to offer you in your defense. You also had more than a millennium of tradition backing you up, but that too was all miswak smoke and mirrors – a tragic case of taqlid groupthink and analytical incompetence continuing to this day.

Next to the truth, as we see it now, the lies that have endured for more than a millennium to cover it up are just as stunning by contrast. Therefore, there is no shame in recognizing when such a worthy debate is lost. There is only shame in denying what is already obvious to everyone with eyes to see and open minds to read and consider all the facts and logic on the table, which you utterly failed to rebut. After all, this debate was never about you and me. It is about the true message of the Quran based on what a mountain of facts and logic right in front of us overwhelmingly shows. Ignorance is easily forgiven, but willful ignorance is not.

Do the honorable deed, Peter. Concede this debate. Or choose the ignominious shame of fanatically legitimizing domestic violence in spite of it being thoroughly debunked as unequivocally illegitimate. It’s over. Your logical fallacies are all standing naked and exposed. All that remains is for you to realize that not even a single fact is left standing to cover them. NOT ONE.

Sincerely, Chameleon X

40 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: February 10, 2015