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
main sources
of violence,
tyranny
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 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.
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
80 percent
of the world's population
(5 billion people)
think Islam is not true.
Kurt Westergaard
drew a
cartoon of the alleged "prophet" Muhammad
which suggested Islam is violent.
To prove him wrong, angry Muslims ...
issued death threats,
offered a $1m reward for his execution,
and organised plots to kill him,
and now he has to live under police protection.
They also
burnt Christian children alive
in protest at the depiction of Islam as violent.
In 2010 a Muslim fanatic tried to kill him.
World population of Muslims and infidels.
It is often forgotten that
80 percent
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.
Spencer says that:
"it is entirely reasonable for free people to oppose the construction of new mosques in non-Muslim countries."
I disagree.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right.
Banning new mosques (or banning Islamic clothing) is a denial of religious freedom.
Spencer's blog 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).
His co-author Hugh Fitzgerald basically agrees with the far left
that America should give up on Afghanistan.
I am still an optimist
but I must admit that the pessimists may be right.
The sub-section
"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 sub-section
"The Doctrines of the Koran"
discusses monotheism.
People like Moses,
Muhammed and St.Patrick
are praised
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.
The sub-section
"Human Rights and Islam"
discusses the almost total incompatibility between
human rights and traditional Islam,
just as
traditional Christianity
is totally incompatible with human rights.
Ch.9
(and here)
("The Arab Conquests and the Position
of Non-Muslim Subjects")
Ali Sina finds Obama's
absurdly inflated view of himself
disturbing.
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 yet.
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 hope he loses his job in 2012.
But it's not the end of the world.
He may even grow in office.
He's still killing jihadis without trial, for example.
On a small point, Ali Sina
makes a common error
by saying:
"Hitler, prior to coming to power had not killed anyone."
This is not true.
Ali Sina's crazy talk.
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."
Ali Sina opposes freedom of religion:
"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?
This is all very disappointing stuff from a man who has done great service in helping
ex-Muslims speak out in public.
He may understand Iran, but I don't think he understands the West yet.
Ironically, given how much Muhammad talks about Hell,
Dante places Muhammad in
"Bolgia 9" of the
8th circle of Hell
in his
Inferno.
See
Canto 28
of the
"Divine Comedy".
Criticism of Islam from people I may not entirely agree with
This is a collection of links to other sites.
Do not assume that because I link to a site that I agree with it.
Stephen Schwartz
is a moderate Muslim convert,
very anti-Islamism,
and I like some of his stuff.
There are interesting debates between him and those who take a more critical line of Islam itself:
One thing
Schwartz says,
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
the Bible
or the Pope,
and should just stay silent.
What nonsense.
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.
Evangelical Christians
Obviously, I have nothing in common with
evangelical Christians
like Jerry Falwell
and Pat Robertson.
They criticise Islam not to promote reason,
but rather to promote a different supernatural belief.
But you have to admire that evangelical Christians
are not afraid of Islam.
If anyone will fight for the freedom to criticise Islam
in public without fear of death, they will.
Again, like the Christian sites, I would take the
Hindu sites
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.
The book
Rangeela Rasool,
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,
Ilm-ud-din.
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.
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
Prophet Muhammad,
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.
His captive Jewish wife
Safiyya bint Huyayy
(taken as booty after he
tortured to death her husband
Kinana ibn al-Rabi,
and
killed her father, her brother,
and all her tribe).
See here.
His captive Jewish slave
Rayhana
(taken as booty after he killed all her tribe).
See here
and here.
The Hadith,
Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64, reads as follows:
"Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet
married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)."
Egyptian writer
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?"
Yes."
Criticising the Qur'an can easily get you killed in some parts of the world,
a useful device to ensure the uncritical propagation of the
meme.
In contrast, criticism of
the Bible
is freely available everywhere in the western world -
because Christians and Jews tolerate
freedom of speech
and freedom of religion.
This is a collection of links to other sites.
Do not assume that because I link to a site that I agree with it.
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.
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
21st century.
If you Google
"Mohammed" as at Dec 2007, the top 10 sites in order are:
Anti-Mohammed:
Wikipedia, full of criticism of Mohammed, and information Muslims would like to keep hidden.
Anti-Mohammed:
The Catholic Encyclopedia's criticism of Mohammed.
Anti-Mohammed:
Zombie's fantastic, blasphemous, forbidden Mohammed Image Archive.
Anti-Mohammed:
The Jewish Virtual Library's criticism of Mohammed.
Anti-Mohammed:
Bible Probe's criticism of Mohammed.
Anti-Mohammed:
A parody anti-Mohammed site.
Neutral:
A person called Mohammed.
Neutral:
A person called Mohammed.
Neutral:
A band called Mohammed.
Neutral:
Information about terrorists called Mohammed.
Finally, at no.11,
the Muslim Student Association of the University of Southern California
delivers 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 Google
"Mohammed" as at Dec 2009, the top sites in order are:
Anti-Mohammed: Wikipedia, full of criticism of Mohammed.
Anti-Mohammed:
The Catholic Encyclopedia's criticism of Mohammed.
Pro-Mohammed:
A pee-cee whitewash of Mohammed in a children's history.
Anti-Mohammed:
Zombie's Mohammed Image Archive.
Anti-Mohammed:
Bible Probe's criticism of Mohammed.
Anti-Mohammed:
19th century book about Mohammed.
Pro-Mohammed:
The first Islamic hit about Mohammed.
The Fall of Islam
by Ali Sina
- An Iranian predicts that Islam will collapse rapidly like
communism
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.
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,
Europe could be the place where millions of Muslims lose their faith,
just as millions of Christians have before them.
I'm not a fan of their leader,
the anti-American,
anti-Israeli
communist
Maryam Namazie,
a secular activist from Iran
who regards
the effort in Iraq as "US state terrorism".
But despite her, their manifesto
is great:
"We are opposed to cultural relativism and the tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture."
They demand:
"Freedom to criticise religion."
They are against:
"restrictions on unconditional freedom of criticism and expression using so-called religious 'sanctities'."
They also have an intelligent reply:
to the simplistic
Fitna.
"Muhammad's empire of faith has managed to thrive in the modern world for one simple reason:
Muslims have kept Muhammad's dark past a secret.
...
The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world's best-kept secrets.
For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about
the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries,
for anyone who raised such objections would .. immediately be killed.
Outside the Muslim world, there has been little interest in Islam ...
But things have changed. Now many people are interested in Islam,
and Muslims aren't able to silence everyone. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet,
it is now impossible to keep Muhammad's life a secret."
Islam will Lose, Mumin Salih, 21 February 2008,
suggests we are only in the early days of a long revolution:
"Over the past fourteen centuries, Islam was never openly challenged or critiqued
...
Even during the last few centuries, when the whole world started to open up to a new age of enlightenment, Islamic authorities managed to seal the minds of Muslims towards any outside views about Islam.
...
For fourteen centuries, Muslims never had a chance to see their religion from any perspective other than their own.
...
Since the introduction of the Internet all that has changed. ...
The Internet is the first true challenge to Islam because it breaks through all the Islamic security systems.
...
Everything about Islam is now subjected to critical scrutiny, people now ask logical questions and demand logical answers. Everyday, the Internet sheds more light on [Islam] to expose its myths. This shakes the very foundation of the Islamic ideology.
... We are only in the beginning of the Internet age, the process may appear to be slow, but the ball started rolling and more Muslims will wake up to the light of truth and come out to the world of enlightenment".
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."
Marxism's Successor
- Theodore Dalrymple on how Islamism may collapse,
and Islam itself too.
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.
Optimism:
"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"
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.
Website
(via here
or here
or here)
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."
If you Google
"Mohammed" as at Dec 2009, the top sites in order are:
Since 1995.
