[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Well, thats the problem with the polemical methodology, it ends up breaking down into smear tactics and turns everyone off from the entire debate.

That's a generalization - but even if it does happen often, don't you think a Muslim approach which avoided this while engaging in civil refutation would give us a "high road" perception, the kind that you speak of occurring if polemics are avoided?

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Because those people are sincerely looking for truth, thats why. What matters isn't getting people to perceive Islam positively, this has rarely happened in Islamic history. What matters is delivering people to the truth of Islam which is done through dawah. Dawah shouldn't be polemical.

How is dawah going to be effective if people don't perceive Islam positively? I'm not saying dawah should be polemical or that we should abandon a consistent message with dawah that ignores negativity, but that we should refute allegations against our leaders and attacks against our deen.

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

In spite of these extremely low public perceptions of Islam, conversion rates through out the world are extremely high in non-Muslim countries including the US, Germany, Russia, and Africa. The message of Islam speaks for itself, all you do is present it through your actions and a simple explanation of our aqeedah and fiqh.

Do you agree that the sort of thing Imam Siraj & co are engaging in is beneficial, then?

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Well, I sat in a marketing class a few times and I took a negotiations class and I've tried these techniques a few times and it works. If you look at Obama's strategy in the beginning of the election, he refused to engage in a smear campaign but presented a moralistic dialogue and that made him really stick out from the other candidates. So this strategy is pretty tried and tested in the field of marketing.

Obama himself took the high road because he's a presidential candidate. That didn't mean other people within the Obama campaign weren't working to discredit Hillary. Even still, he did engage in the occasional attack against her. Do you think if Chuck Robb or Michael Dukakis had been able to effectively refute their negative images, they wouldn't have destroyed their election opponents?

Also, he had a lot more than a moralistic dialogue that made him stick out from the other candidates. He's young, hip, half African American, has a more appealing record to Dem voters than Hillary, and so on. It's difficult to quantify the importance of each individual factor.

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

They don't have the time to keep track of all the complex arguments, the masses by definition need simplicity and the Islamic aqeedah is simple enough. When they read up on Islam, whether its through an anti-Muslim or a pro-Muslim source, the aqeedah will stick out and grab their attention. Most of the people I know who converted to Islam said it was the simplicity and obviousness of our basic beliefs that got them thinking about Islam in the first place, even though they were in an anti-Muslim phase.

Word. I'm not saying we shouldn't engage in straightforward dawah. The masses supposedly aren't going to be paying attention to the polemics anyway, right?

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I didn't make the argument that the average person will attend the university debates, I was referring to the polemicists. The media is not the proper forum to have intense debates is what I was getting at. Most of the media outlets today are not really designed to have critical discussions, but to sensationalize certain subjects and ingrain them in people's minds. You're fighting a losing battle if you use the media in that manner, even Christian Evangelicals don't engage in these sort of polemics and when they do, they look like a fanatical fringe.

So if you're going to engage a polemicist, you do so in an environment where he's at a disadvantage: a truly critical environment. You debate with him in peer-reviewed journals, dissertations, and in parliamentary style debate. Thats where you deconstruct their arguments so when they get used in a public venue, other intellectual elites (who may or may not be Muslim) will be able to criticize them as well.

Most of the polemicists we know don't develop their own arguments but get them from other intellectuals who are either lawyers, public relations experts, or work for think tanks. There's a lot of minds that work together to construct a good PR campaign.

I agree with all of this, but I'm not saying we engage in serious debate via the news media or other popular media. I'm just saying that these media have a place when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of people, and it doesn't necessarily have to be through substantive debate.

Jaysh: word. Also, hippie.

[jinnzaman]

Again, I'm not saying not to debate with people, but I'm saying that their is a proper venue for it which isn't the mainstream media (newspapers, tv, etc). If you want to engage in a detailed debate about it in a real open forum such as a university setting or on the internet, thats fine.

However, the best way to respond in the media is by adopting the general tactics that public relations firms utilize.

At the risk of sounding cheesy, treat Islam like a product and push it in that manner. Whenever a product is bashed, companies don't issue commercials with detailed refutations of their opponents, they usually respond in other creative manners. They only use press releases when its absolutely important.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

At the risk of sounding cheesy, treat Islam like a product and push it in that manner.

I do agree with this. This is actually the approach Imam Siraj and co are taking. I attended a speech he gave a few years back where he basically said the same thing, and cited ways in which other lobbies have rapidly exerted influence on American culture and American perception of them (like the gay lobby, for instance).

However, Islam is still an idea and thus propagating it or creating a favorable impression of it has a different set of challenges. It faces far more public scrutiny than a product. If people don't like a product, they simply won't buy it. They're not going to be offended by it. If people don't like an idea, they're vocal about it, and that can affect/influence others.

[Tairra]

what king is this that is making these statements?

When I saw the word subway I thought you were talking about the resturant, I guess because I'm a little hungry.

[ummah1421]

is anyone gonna help the cause or just comment on it?

there was a press conference at masjid at-taqwa last week over this foolishness.

the imam said if there were any suggestions to pass them along

if you post them here, i will be sure to let him know ( if they are any good of course )

[jinnzaman]

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[MossadConspiracy]

public opinion is more important than debates in journals and universities

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

public opinion is more important than debates in journals and universities

I agree - but the means of influencing public opinion are closer to marketing schemes than substantive debate.

Azeem's approach was quick and to the point. He didn't really get into defending the Imam, but (1) pointed out its irrelevance to the ICNA program and (2) pointed out that the founding member of the program died in the 9/11 attack. The second point is an excellent PR strategy because it takes away from the 9/11 trauma argument.

[MossadConspiracy]

So something like "Catholicism WOW!"?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

So something like "Catholicism WOW!"?

Precisely.

BUDDY JESUS!

jk

[dreamdeferred]

Man.......Azeem Khan's last point was like an uppercut of truth and justice. KAPLOW!!!! Right on the kisser.

Nicely done.

[ComfortOFillusion]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Assalamo Alaikum,

Oh Snaps,Go Brother Azeem! Did any one else see his slight head shake and lip movement after his surprisingly good comeback to that congressmen's hateful comments? Yes it was good.

Originally Posted by dreamdeferred

Man.......Azeem Khan's last point was like an uppercut of truth and justice. KAPLOW!!!! Right on the kisser.

Nicely done.

Yes! It was sublime! "You need to get your facts straight, you stupid congressmen"

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by dreamdeferred

Man.......Azeem Khan's last point was like an uppercut of truth and justice. KAPLOW!!!! Right on the kisser.

Agreed.

That was one HELLUVA slap right on the Congressman's face. My only regret is that CNN didnt show the money shot of the Congressman's face when Azeem let loose with that bit of juicy info.

[dreamdeferred]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Agreed.

That was one HELLUVA slap right on the Congressman's face. My only regret is that CNN didnt show the money shot of the Congressman's face when Azeem let loose with that bit of juicy info.

That would have been sweet! Info like this needs to be repeated ad naseaum for the next few weeks......it's a powerful rebuttal.