All discussion of religion
must begin by acknowledging that
Islam is different to all other religions
because of the threat of violence to its critics.
All other religions
can be criticised and even ridiculed without fear of violence.
Only with Islam is there a credible threat of violence to its critics.
Muslims can criticise Christianity
without any fear of violence,
but it is an unfair, one-sided debate.
Christians cannot criticise Islam
without an ever-present fear of Islamic violence.
It needs far more bravery to be on that side.
A simple, calm, rational debate between all religions is not possible
because the fear of Islamic violence is always in the background.
Obviously I, like the vast majority
of the world's population, (*)
think Islam is not true.
There is no evidence to support any of its claims about the universe and reality.
I also think it is one of the
two or three
and human rights abuse
in the modern world.
However, I am deterred from speaking all of my thoughts
because of the threat of violence.
As a result, on this website
I will freely tell you what I think about Moses, and
I will freely tell you what I think about Jesus.
But I will not tell you fully what I think about Muhammad or the Qur'an.
I keep it understated, unsaid and intellectual.
I am cautious about not inflaming the primitive, violent brain of the jihadist.
Someday, when Islam is a mature, modern, tolerant religion
and there is no longer a threat of violence,
I will discuss freely what I think about Muhammad and the Qur'an.
Let us hope we see such a day in our lifetimes.
(*) It is often forgotten that
of the world's population
(5 billion people)
think Islam is not true.
World population of Muslims and infidels.
It is often forgotten that
of the world's population
(5 billion people)
thinks Islam is not true.
After 1,400 years of preaching, conquest, genocide and forced conversion,
still only 20 percent of the world's population thinks Islam is true.
Europe and North Africa and the Middle East
were all Christian
in 600 AD
(before Islam was invented).
Such a shame that Islam was invented.
Because of the
threat of violence,
I cannot tell you what I think of the Prophet Muhammad.
We can freely discuss Moses and Jesus, but we cannot
freely discuss the life of the
because Islam is such an immature and violent religion.
Because of the threat of violence,
I will not tell you what I think about Muhammad. I never in fact directly criticise Muhammad or the Qur'an. I link to some sites that may, but I never do myself.
This is a collection of links to other sites.
Do not assume that because I link to a site that I agree with it.
Some Muslims claim that Aisha was not under 10 when Muhammad had sex with her.
But even this
Muslim apologetics site
admits that this is a new, 20th century idea:
"It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali
was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged 6 and 9 .. at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did ... in the 1920s and 1930s."
Alaa Al Aswany
sums up the inability of Muslims to criticise (or even understand) Muhammad:
In a moronic article,
Western hostility to Islam is stoked by double standards and distortion (rather than, say, by Islamic terror), 20 July 2009,
he tells a naive story about Muhammad:
"I told how the Prophet Muhammad was so mild-mannered that when he knelt down to pray his grandsons Hassan and Hussein would often jump on his back in play. He would stay kneeling so as not to disturb the boys and then he would resume his prayers. I asked the audience: "Can you imagine that a man who stopped praying for the sake of children would advocate killing and terrorising innocent people?""
This provokes a truly brilliant comment:
""Can you imagine that a man who stopped praying for the sake of children would advocate killing and terrorising innocent people?"
From the Hadith by Bukhari at
which re-numbers this as
For over 1000 years, how many children have been abused because of this hadith?
Animal rights group PETA sucks up to Islam.
PETA, being far leftists,
fail to denounce Halal,
but rather ask for modest changes in the ritual.
All soaked with absurd
gushing praise for Islam and the Prophet.
PETA writes like this:
"The Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said that there is an estimable reward for showing kindness to every living being. The prophet also says that ..."
You can bet that if Halal was recently invented by right-wing Christians,
PETA would call it barbaric and campaign for it to be banned.
Spencer is not as clear on freedom of religion as, say,
Spencer says that:
"it is entirely reasonable for free people to oppose the construction of new mosques in non-Muslim countries."
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right.
Banning new mosques (or banning Islamic clothing) is a denial of religious freedom.
I strongly disagree with
Spencer's support for the EDL,
rather ignores the fact that Britain is a democracy,
and issues of policy should be settled by debate rather than by uneducated rioting street mobs.
It is noteworthy that Spencer doesn't admire a group that attacks the American police.
But attacking the British police is apparently OK.
Spencer also tends towards pessimism about the possibility of
spreading democracy and human rights
to Islamic countries, and thinks the West should concentrate on defending itself
(immigration, hate preaching, demands for sharia, terror plots).
Hugh Fitzgerald basically agrees with the left
that America should give up on Afghanistan
(but for different reasons than the left).
criticises neocons, and says they are as naive as the left in thinking the Islamic world can be reformed:
"Neocons cannot face the truth about Islam ... We're presenting them with the reality that our enemies cannot be persuaded, will not be bribed, and are no longer intimidated. At best they be contained".
points out that western Muslims live in freedom and still turn to jihad,
so why should we expect that bringing freedom to the Islamic world will end jihad?
The most disturbing critic of Spencer is the
The ADL do good work, and cannot be ignored.
But I think they are wrong here.
Their criticisms of Spencer are
weak and unconvincing.
They attack him for regular quotes about jihad and sharia that could be said by anyone.
"Political Assassinations: The Massacre of the Jews"
discusses Muhammed's conduct in warfare,
his treatment of opponents,
and his opposition to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
"The Doctrines of the Koran"
People like Moses,
Muhammed and St.Patrick
for introducing monotheism
instead of the native polytheism, paganism and idolatry.
But as Warraq points out,
monotheism is in no sense intellectually superior to
polytheism - indeed it is a backward step
since it is much more violent.
"Human Rights and Islam"
discusses the almost total incompatibility between
human rights and traditional Islam,
is totally incompatible with human rights.
("The Arab Conquests and the Position
of Non-Muslim Subjects")
that sums up why I am inclined to take his critics' line:
"I do not in general respond to comments on Islam by non-Muslims,
except when they are made by apologists for Wahhabism.".
By this argument, I have no right to criticise
or the Pope,
and should just stay silent.
Schwartz is a moderate Muslim,
and if all Muslims were like him it would be fantastic.
But he is still committed to a belief in supernatural things for which there is no evidence.
There was a happy ending.
The prosecution for "breach of the peace" failed.
The city of Dearborn had to
apologise and pay compensation.
Everyone involved - including the police - should be disciplined or sacked.
Again, like the Christian sites, I would take the
with a grain of salt,
since they are criticising Islam not to promote reason,
but rather to promote a different supernatural belief.
Still, they may contain something useful.
a Hindu criticism of Muhammed,
was published in Lahore
under British rule in 1923.
The Hindu Raj Pal was the publisher (but not the author).
Raj Pal was murdered because of this book in 1929 by an angry, uneducated, illiterate
young Muslim fascist,
The British naturally executed him,
but this violent young religious maniac is a hero to many Pakistanis today.
He became a poster boy for Pakistan's blasphemy law,
which is used to persecute religious minorities and critics,
and silence all discussion of Islam and Muhammed.
Ali Sina finds Obama's
absurdly inflated view of himself
I agree, but he then
compares Obama's psyche to that of the
"madmen of history - from Hitler to Stalin, Mao, Kim, Osama, Khomeini, Saddam and Idi Amin.
These men wreaked havoc and killed millions.
Once a madman is in power it is already too late. Nothing can stop a mad leader except death or war."
This is silly stuff.
Why not compare Obama to other narcissistic Western politicians in recent history,
of whom there are many.
It makes one wonder if Ali Sina really understands the West.
Dumb politicians like Obama get elected now and again.
But they are subject to so many checks and balances, and the need for re-election,
and falling opinion polls,
that they always moderate their tune.
Western democracy always survives them.
It will survive Obama.
I'm not happy Obama got elected,
and I was shocked that he was re-elected.
But it's not the end of the world.
He's not all bad.
He's killing jihadis without trial, for example.
And in 2016 he will be gone.
America will survive.
Ali Sina's crazy talk about Obama.
He says Obama is a traitor:
"My advice to Barack Obama is to pack up and seek refuge in Kenya before Americans discover you are a fraud and a traitor.
This man is on a mission to destroy America.
Obama should be brought to justice, tried and preferably electrocuted for high treason."
This is disappointing stuff.
He may understand Iran, but I don't think he understands the West.
"if America had a legitimate president, my advice would be ban Islam and make the practice of Sharia illegal."
Though he then seems to contradict himself:
"If there was a patriotic president in office, I would have told him to ban all Islamic groups that work against America and its constitution."
Surely he wants all Islamic groups banned,
not just those that work against America?
Sharia must be barred from any place in western law.
But it must be legal to follow sharia rules
in your private life.
And it must be legal to ignore and despise such rules.
Like any Muslim cleric, he complains about
"the rampant immorality" of the West.
He rails against porn, gays, naturism, swinging and sexual freedom.
"Homosexuality is a disorder no different from zoophilia (bestiality), ... pedophilia, and a host of other paraphilias (sexual deviances)."
"Homosexuality is a sexual disorder, like sadomasochism, fetishism, zoophilia and pedophilia."
The globalised world of the Internet, with its free speech everywhere,
poses an unbelievable challenge to all religions, but especially to Islam.
It will be interesting to see whether belief in Islam survives through the
If you Googled
"Mohammed" as at Dec 2007, the top 10 sites in order were:
Wikipedia, full of criticism of Mohammed, and information Muslims would like to keep hidden.
The Catholic Encyclopedia's criticism of Mohammed.
Zombie's fantastic, blasphemous, forbidden Mohammed Image Archive.
The Jewish Virtual Library's criticism of Mohammed.
Bible Probe's criticism of Mohammed.
A parody anti-Mohammed site.
A person called Mohammed.
A person called Mohammed.
A band called Mohammed.
Information about terrorists called Mohammed.
Finally, at no.11,
the Muslim Student Association of the University of Southern California
delivered the first actual pro-Mohammed hit!
This probably represents the world quite well.
80 percent of the world does not believe in Islam,
and 80 percent of the world does not admire Mohammed.
And the infidels that know most about Mohammed
are probably the ones who admire him the least.
So the hits give a good idea what the world thinks of Mohammed.
It's just that this would have been hidden from Muslims before the age of the Internet.
How can Islam survive in such an environment of free-wheeling criticism and free speech?
If you Googled
"Mohammed" as at Dec 2009, the top sites in order were:
Anti-Mohammed: Wikipedia, full of criticism of Mohammed.
The Catholic Encyclopedia's criticism of Mohammed.
A pee-cee whitewash of Mohammed in a children's history.
Zombie's Mohammed Image Archive.
Bible Probe's criticism of Mohammed.
19th century book about Mohammed.
The first Islamic hit about Mohammed.
The Fall of Islam
by Ali Sina
- An Iranian predicts that Islam will collapse rapidly like
when its people are finally allowed to read other ideas.
The Internet now allows such discussion
for the first time in the history of Islam.
Suicide of the West
by Theodore Dalrymple,
reviews some pessimistic books,
but then notes that the future is rarely predictable:
"Will these books appear to have been unduly alarmist in half a century's time?
I certainly hope so, and indeed suspect that it might be so.
We have had many perils and predicted apocalypses before.
Islamism, and indeed (in my belief) the whole of Islam,
is potentially very vulnerable to the corrosive effect of the intellectual acid-bath
of rational criticism."
Dalrymple's delicious disrespect for the daft ideology of Islamism:
"For the second time in living memory,
we find ourselves obliged by historical circumstances to examine doctrinal philosophies that,
from the abstract intellectual point of view, are not worth examining.
They belong, rather, to the history of human folly and credulity:
which is itself, of course, an inexhaustibly interesting and important subject."
It is, if you think about it, incredible that anybody could believe in nonsense
like political Islamism.
That any young Muslim man
could possibly believe that Islamism could create a better world.
"Diseases of acute onset are apt to be cured quickly: if, that is, they do not kill first.
And in historical terms, our preoccupation with the threat of Islamism is very acute.
There is hope, therefore,
that Islamism will pass from the world stage as quickly as it arrived on it."
And again, in the world of the Internet, more than Islamism may fall:
"Personally, I believe that all forms of Islam are very vulnerable in the modern world
to rational criticism,
which is why the Islamists are so ferocious in trying to suppress such criticism.
They have instinctively understood that Islam itself, while strong, is exceedingly brittle,
as communism once was. They understand that, at the present time in human history,
it is all or nothing.
Islamism is a last gasp, not a renaissance, of the religion"
The Great Islamic Apostasy
Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family
by Anthony Browne
- The threats against apostates are disturbing,
but look at the optimism:
"One estimate suggests that
as many as 15 per cent of Muslims in Western societies
have lost their faith, which would mean that in Britain there are about 200,000 apostates."
Rather than Islam taking over
Europe could be the place where millions of Muslims lose their faith,
just as millions of Christians have before them.
The CEMB is somewhat compromised by their leader,
the anti-American, anti-Israel communist
But despite her, their
"We are opposed to cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture."
"Freedom to criticise religion."
They are against:
"restrictions on unconditional freedom of criticism and expression using so-called religious 'sanctities'."
"ex-Muslims have embraced the British dream like no others by adopting the mainstream British mode of belief, that is unbelief and scepticism".
"In reality the ideal for British social cohesion would be for lots of Muslims (and Hindus and Sikhs) to become atheists, agnostics or very wishy-washy Anglicans. That we can't admit this is at the heart of the integration problem facing an unbelieving society."
"how does one become British now? Sitting in a pub talking about how there is no God seems pretty close to me."
Why I left Islam
by female ex-Muslim "Ishina".
Absolutely brilliant. Beautiful and true. Every Muslim in the world should read this.
"First, the theological claims of Islam have been proven to be false again and again by people much more informed and eloquent than me.
Maybe millennia ago when books were simply not available the Quran might have stood out as the most profound and pertinent thing heard in that region, but what are people's excuses these days?"
"What exactly is the Message? What could be so important that the Grand Architect of the Universe took time out of its schedule to communicate with humanity for the very last time? What's all the boasting about?
Never before has one boasted so much about so little.
... Annals of petty local feuds, regional drama, and the defunct tribal taboos of an ignorant culture that thought the earth was flat."
"What about philosophy in the Quran? Here is what I can write about the philosophy in the Quran: Nothing. There's nowhere to start. Islam is philosophically sterile. It's almost as though philosophy didn't even exist as a great tradition hundreds of years earlier
What a pathetic, infantile stab in the dark at philosophy Islam offers us. What kind of unfortunate and simplistic proto-mind can be satisfied by it? What appetite do I have that otherwise intelligent and respectable Muslims do not? It is a mystery to me. I am literally baffled at the hold these desert fairy tales have over people to this day. How amazing it would be if something so vapid and mundane would placate my wondering mind."
"As soon as I actually found out about Mohammed and his sleazy, violent, entitled and indulgent life, the spell was broken. ... How anyone with a working conscience, a love of humanity and want for equality and respect can read about the life of Mohammed and remain impressed – or worse, in full awe of the man – is a mystery to me. ... The more I learned about the Prophet, the more I found him repulsive even for a man of his time."
"There are better role models in this beautiful world than the so-called Prophet. There are better contributions to the knowledge of the world than the cancerous, poisoned chalice known as the Quran. There is better wisdom out there to find".
sums up why, despite everything, there is hope, for the first time in 1,400 years.
Islamists need to leave the West, stay home, and ban the Internet
In summary, by even engaging with the globalised world at all,
Islamists are taking a huge risk.
They are risking mass apostasy and the loss of Islamic faith even in their home countries.
It may be that if Islamists wish to protect their faith,
they should leave the West, leave Europe, return to their homelands,
and ban the Internet and all foreign media.
Soviet communism could not survive in the globalised age
of MTV, Madonna, Hollywood, Levis and Coca-Cola.
Islamism, and even Islam itself, will have just as much trouble.
And yet suicidally, Islamists are coming to the West,
and allowing TV and the Internet in their home countries,
which may be the process that will soon (before 2100) destroy their entire
traditional culture and faith.
Far from taking over the world, this may be Islamism's last stand
before its traditional countries are changed forever.
The story of thousands of years of religious terror in a nutshell:
Two sweet, innocent American Muslim boys
are sent to Pakistan by their family
and brainwashed in a Taliban-linked
Pakistani madrassa for over three years.
They resist for a long time
but finally start to believe the nonsense they are taught.
They emerge as hate-filled young Islamist nutcases.
So sad to watch their childhoods taken away.
And this story has repeated for thousands of years as
ignorant old men, of many different and opposing creeds,
all over the world, destroy childhoods
and churn out starry-eyed young believers in (and killers for)
their nonsensical, made-up supernatural ideas.
Trailer for documentary "The Karachi Kids".
See hi-res version.
The network of
"The Arabic Anti-Islamic Legion"
represents something genuinely new in the world.
a group of
young people from
around the Middle East
who grew up being oppressed by Islamists -
and now hate Islam.
See article, July 2012.
See the comments, where some people dispute that these bands are for real.
I don't find their disputes very convincing, but it's possible of course.
What is interesting is whether the oppression by Islam of young people will eventually lead to a major backlash.
Just as millions of young people of Catholic background can't stand the Catholic church,
so millions of young people in the Middle East are sick of being oppressed by Islam.
It may be
that a mass apostasy from Islam
of millions of its young people
will be one of the major themes of the coming century.
to help people safely leave Islam. "You have a right to be free.
Whether you wish to convert to Christianity or some other religion, or have no religion at all, you have a right to live in peace, free from fear.
If you are in the U.S. and are being harassed or threatened for leaving Islam, you have recourse." Robert Spencer:
"America is the land of the free, and apostates must know they are free here and safe here.
Rifqa Bary can do it. So can you. Freedom of religion is an unalienable right. Sharia law holds no weight or legitimacy here. Apostates are free to leave Islam and to be who and whatever [they] want to be."
assures us that Muhammad is not a madman.
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following:
(a) Make threats.
(b) Accuse me of crimes.
(c) Comment on my appearance.
(d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.)
(e) Complain to my employer.
Yes, people do all these things.