As this researcher quite rightly points out: it is a grievous
error for us Kuffar to assume that the terms of our debate
can be mapped onto the Islamic world-view. Quite often
Muslims will exploit ambiguities and principles in our use of
language so that Muslims can appear to be doing one thing
when they are doing another. Statements by people
committed to an ideology with a long history of attempts to
subjugate us using lethal force should not be taken at face
value. Muslims are very familiar with the discourses of the
West, whilst the expertise on Islam built up in the West in
the previous centuries has been concealed by our educated
elite. In any debate Muslims can put forward their most-
expert and best-trained deceivers, whilst our experts and
best debaters are (with rare exceptions) hiding away in fear
of losing their lives or at the very least their income.
The word “innocent” is one of the slippery and
duplicitous terms used by Muslims. Muslims claim that the
people who live in democracies are not innocent, since
those who live in democratic countries believe that their
governments are carrying out the will of the people,^266 i.e.
since democracy claims to be the will of the people, then
how are the people innocent of what their elected politicians
do? It is not just that the word “innocent” has a narrower
meaning when used in the duplicitous framework of Islam,
but the word “defensive” has a wider meaning:
Islamic apologists often say that jihad can
only be defensive, that it can never be
directed toward civilians, and that Islam
forbids the taking of innocent life. Thatʼs all