If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新這裡，你可能想通過定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!感謝您訪問！

Or: The Case of A Pot Calling The Kettle Black 或者：該個案是某火鍋五十步笑百步

In one of their pages, Answering Islam had made the在他們的一個網頁，做出了回答伊斯蘭教 following claim以下索賠 with the clear intention of “poisoning the well” where Muslim sites are concerned:與明確的意圖“中毒以及”在穆斯林聖地方面：

On “Answering Islam” we will purposely not use atheist articles against Islam , since we know ourselves more connected with Muslims on the basis of our common belief in one God, than with atheists who are mocking both of our faiths. 關於“伊斯蘭回答：” 我們會故意不使用無神論者文章針對伊斯蘭教 ，因為我們知道自己更連接與穆斯林在此基礎上我們共同的信念在一個上帝，比無神論者誰是我們的信仰都嘲弄。 Our goal is not the attack and destruction of faith in God, but that our Muslim co-believers in the Creator God will come to recognize the full truth of what God has revealed about himself and His will for our life. 我們的目標不是攻擊和破壞信仰上帝，但我們的穆斯林聯合信徒的造物主上帝會來充分認識真理什麼上帝透露關於他自己和他會為我們的生活。

(emphasis are our own) （重點是我們自己的）

The rest of the page goes on to either debase or discredit Muslim websites for their dependency on “atheist” material and preaching about the lack of “conscience” on the part of Muslims to abandon atheist material (notwithstanding the fact that most of the links on their page are either broken or no longer exist).其餘的網頁接著要么貶低或詆毀穆斯林網站為他們的依賴“無神論者”，鼓吹物質缺乏有關“良心”上的部分穆斯林放棄無神論材料（儘管事實上，大部分的連結他們的網頁是不是破裂或不再存在）。

Unfortunately, Answering Islam does not seem to practise what it preaches.不幸的是，伊斯蘭教回答似乎沒有言行一致。 Of late they have been relying on atheist material from hostile anti-Islamic websites in order to further近來，他們所依靠的無神論者物質敵對反伊斯蘭網站，以進一步 their goal他們的目標 of “the presentation of the truth and genuine Christian scholarship” . 對“陳述事實和真正的基督教獎學金”。 Is it considered “the presentation of the truth” to rely on material from which they themselves denounce its source — known atheist websites openly hostile to Islam such as是否認為“陳述事實”依靠他們自己的物質從源頭譴責-著名無神論者網站公然敵視伊斯蘭教如 Freethought Mecca自由思想麥加 , ， Mukto-Mona Mukto -莫娜 and和 Faithfreedom International Faithfreedom國際 – to the extent that they are being used freely and widely throughout their articles? - 以至於他們正在全國各地廣泛使用的自由，他們的文章？

One of their team members — despite the so-called “official policy” of Answering Islam to never resort to atheist material — even had the audacity to state in an e-mail dated January 21st 2004, as follows:團隊成員之一的 - 儘管所謂的“官方政策”的回答伊斯蘭教從未訴諸無神論者材料 - 甚至厚顏無恥地州在一封電子郵件給 2004年1月21日，具體如下：

From: sam shamoun [sam_shmn@hotmail.com]來自： 薩姆薩姆[sam_shmn@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:00 AM發送：星期三，2004年1月21日上午03:00

To: nadirahmedassalafi@*****; sbwus@*****; silas333@hotmail.com致：nadirahmedassalafi @*****; sbwus @*****; silas333@hotmail.com
Cc: jokatz@gmx.de ; menj@******; usman11@*******; islm4evr1@*******; cyberapostle99@*******; noorullah48@*******抄送：jokatz@gmx.de; menj @******; usman11 @*******; islm4evr1 @*******; cyberapostle99 @*******; noorullah48 @ * ******

Subject: RE: PROOF: Silas & his gang are *Heretics*…Read: REFUTATION:主題：RE：證明：西拉斯和他的團伙是*異端 * ...閱讀：駁： MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD對 'S SUICIDE ATTEMPTS的自殺企圖

Ah huh, sure you will.啊嗯，相信你會的。 You meant to say that you will begin your Spring Comedy Tour soon. See how Answering Islam, FreeThought Mecca and FFI expose this fraud …你的意思是說，你將開始你的Spring喜劇旅遊很快。 查看如何回答伊斯蘭教麥加自由思想和FFI揭露欺詐 ...

So much for their touted “reliance” upon genuine Christian scholarship.這麼多的吹捧“自力更生”後，真正的基督教獎學金。 The e-mails we have bolded above belong to three prominent team members of Answering Islam : Sam Shamoun, “Silas” and Jochen Katz, respectively.該電郵我們粗體屬於上述三個突出團隊成員回答伊斯蘭教 ：薩姆薩姆，“西拉斯”約亨卡茨和分別。

It is also clear that despite the (worthless) “pledge” of Answering Islam, they have used atheist literature for many years against Islam.同樣清楚的是，儘管（不值錢）“承諾”的回答伊斯蘭教，他們已經使用多年無神論文學對伊斯蘭教。 For example, a prominent atheist author they are fond of quoting is the Marxist-influenced Iranian, Ali Dashti .例如，著名作家，他們是無神論者喜歡引用，是馬克思主義影響的伊朗， 阿里達什蒂安 。 Here is what Jochen Katz said five years ago when defending his use of Dashti in a這裡是約亨卡茨說，5年前，當他的辯護中使用達什蒂安 newsgroup posting新聞組發布 dated 02/07/1999:日期1999年2月7日：

Obviously, his expertise on the Old Testament is somewhat lacking. 顯然，他的專長舊約有點欠缺。 :-) That doesn't mean his knowledge of the Qur'an and Islamic :-)這並不意味著他的知識和伊斯蘭的古蘭經 history 歷史 is similarly shallow. 同樣是淺。 I never recommended his book for learning about the Bible. 我從來沒有推薦他的書為了解聖經。

Hence, this begs the following question: If we Muslims are not supposed to use atheist material because they reject the concept of God, then why does it make sense for the Christian missionaries to make use of material from groups who openly reject their religious belief system, ie the Jews , in their attacks against Islam?因此，這引出了以下問題：如果我們穆斯林不應該使用無神論者材料，因為他們拒絕概念的上帝，那麼為什麼它是有意義的基督教傳教士利用物質組誰公開反對他們的宗教信念系統， 即猶太人 ，在他們的攻擊伊斯蘭教？ The Jews, though they do believe in God, openly reject the Prophethood of猶太人，但他們都相信上帝，公然拒絕的先知 Jesus耶穌 (P) in toto and their literature are riddled with the most abusive and insultive words against him and Mary (P). （P）的托托和他們的文學是充滿了最虐待和insultive話對他和瑪麗（P）的。 Yet, the Answering Islam team have an uploaded version of Geiger's book on their website many years ago!然而， 在回答伊斯蘭教團隊上傳的版本蓋格的書在其網站上很多年了！

We at bismikaallahuma.org are firm in our stand that valid scholarship –regardless of whether its source is Muslim, Christian or otherwise — will be used to defend Islam from the missionary onslaught.我們在bismikaallahuma.org是堅定的立場， 有效的獎學金，無論其來源是穆斯林，基督教或以其他方式-將被用來從捍衛伊斯蘭教傳教士的衝擊。 As much as we disagree with the fundamental beliefs of Atheism, Judaism, etc., we shall not hesitate to quote from them if their argument is proven valid with the proper scholarship backing up a particular argument.儘管我們不同意的基本信念無神論，猶太教等，我們將毫不猶豫地引用他們，如果他們的論據是證明有效與適當的獎學金備份特定的參數。 If “Answering (Attacking-) Islam” wishes to use material from the heathen who are even against their faith, that is totally up to them.如果“回答（進攻-）伊斯蘭”希望使用的材料從異教徒誰，甚至違背自己的信念，那就是完全取決於他們。 But why accuse and lambast Muslims for something which they themselves adopt and use freely?但是，為什麼指責穆斯林和揍的東西， 他們自己採取和自由使用？ Is this the case of a pot calling the kettle black?難道這就是案件鍋五十步笑百步？

In conclusion, it is clear that the issue here is not whether Muslims are sourcing material from the “heathen” or otherwise, but that when their arguments get sharper from relying on genuine scholarship (no matter the source), the missionaries have no answer to them and therefore resort to poisoning the well.總之，很顯然，這裡的問題不在於是否是穆斯林採購材料從“異教徒”或其他方式，但，當他們的論點得到更清晰的從依靠真正的獎學金（無論是源），傳教士沒有答案他們因此訴諸中毒良好。 Even if Muslims do use atheist material, it simply means that they are simply adopting “Answering (Attacking-) Islam's” methodology, and that those behind Answering Islam are proven to be hypocrites when they demand that we do not use their methodology.即使不使用無神論者穆斯林材料，它只是意味著他們只是採取“回答（進攻-）伊斯蘭教的”方法，而那些落後回答伊斯蘭教被證明是偽君子當他們要求我們不使用它們的方法。 Furthermore, their deception are also exposed when they lie about not using atheist sources because it “contradicts” their belief system, and yet they still use works the likes of Dashti and even anti-Christian sources to attack Islam.此外，他們的欺騙，也暴露出他們撒謊時不使用無神論者來源，因為它“違背”自己的信仰系統，但他們仍然喜歡使用作品的達什蒂安甚至反基督教來源攻擊伊斯蘭教。 So why is it okay for them to use such sources and not okay for Muslims in general to follow their methodology?那麼，為什麼它是好讓他們利用這些資源，而不是一般的好穆斯林跟隨他們的方法？

The author is the co-founder and executive editor of Bismika Allahuma . 作者是共同創始人和執行主編Bismika Allahuma。 His personal blog may be accessed at 他的個人博客，可以訪問 Pendapat Kritis Pendapat克里蒂斯 . 。