This page includes some of my thoughts about Islam and links to other sites, both religious and anti-religious.
My writings are in black. Plagiarized text is in maroon, sometimes highlighted by me in red.
Go Home
. . . Islam as Totalitarianism ___ Islam is a fascist ideology
. . . The Koran (Quran) and violence ___ Muslim nations lag in freedoms
. . . Muslim Dissidents Denounce Islam
. . . Religion's Misguided Missiles (RelTer25)
. . . Religious terrorism page (RelTer10) ___ Richard Dawkins on Sept. 11 Religious Terrorism
. . . Some samples of Quranic contradictions for you ___ The Stupidest Religion
. . . Where Are the Islamic Moderates?
Richard Dawkins on Sept. 11 Religious Terrorism: http://www.ffrf.org/dawkins.html "Time to Stand Up"
Distinguished British
scientist, author and atheist Richard Dawkins, who
was scheduled to accept an "Emperor Has No
Clothes Award" on Sept. 22 at the
Freedom From Religion Foundation convention,
cancelled his appearance in light of travel difficulties after
the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
He supplied an exclusive article, reprinted below, . .
.
Written for the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org), Madison, Wisconsin, September 2001.
"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.
Those of us who have renounced one or another of the three "great" monotheistic religions have, until now, moderated our language for reasons of politeness. Christians, Jews and Muslims are sincere in their beliefs and in what they find holy. We have respected that, even as we have disagreed with it. . . .
My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say "Enough!" Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.
Notwithstanding bitter sectarian hatreds over the centuries (all too obviously still going strong), Judaism, Islam and Christianity have much in common. Despite New Testament watering down and other reformist tendencies, all three pay historic allegiance to the same violent and vindictive God of Battles, memorably summed up by Gore Vidal in 1998:
The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal -- God is the Omnipotent Father -- hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is not just in place for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. . . .
My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all. . . .
To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic. . . .
The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both--and mixes explosively with both. Only the wilfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East. Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. "All is changed, changed utterly."
Richard Dawkins is professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford, and author of The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and Unweaving the Rainbow.
"Ah, but you are confusing Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. The Real Islam has nothing to do with violence," apologists of Islam argue. There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Koran, the Sunna, the Hadith-Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The Islamists with greater logic and coherence than so-called moderate or liberal Muslims have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology. It wishes to replace capitalism and liberalism as the reigning world system. -- By Ibn Warraq, author of "Why I am not a Muslim". From:
(1) Sulekha Coffeehouse Posts Philosophy: http://www.sulekha.com/chpost.asp?forum=philosophy&oldurl=/36338.html/36338.html STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY By Ibn Warraq, author of "Why I am not a Muslim". Sep. 18, 2001.
(2) Statement by Ibn Warraq on the World Trade Center Atrocity: http://www.secularislam.org/wtc.htm Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society.
Islam as Totalitarianism: http://members.aye.net/~abrupt/house/islam3.html The religion of Muslims reeks of undemocratic fascism; indeed, every country run by Muslim theocrats is a totalitarian state. Islamic law regulates every aspect of public and private life: it does not differentiate between rituals, legal codes, ethics, and good manners. Islam legislates everything, such as the proper use of toothpicks . . .
Just as Catholicism has its doctrines of papal infallibility (along with the various embarrassing clarifications, corrections and outright cancellations of papal decrees over the centuries), Islam has its own source for unarguable interpretation of the will of God: the theologians who dedicate their lives to studying the intricacies of Islam. . . .
The Koran specifically states:
22.9: "As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods."
47.4: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads . . .
9.29,30: "Declare war upon those to whom the Scriptures were revealed but believe neither in God nor the Last Day, and who do not forbid that which God and His Apostles have forbidden, and who refuse to acknowledge the true religion until they pay the poll-tax without reservation and are totally subjugated. . . .
Islam's long history of using murder as a means of dealing with unbelievers, a history it shares with Christianity. Under Muslim law, atheism is the greatest sin of all - more heinous than murder, theft, rape or adultery - and is therefore punishable by death. The law also demands execution of any Muslim man or woman who decides to convert to another religion. . . .
The very concept of free individuals with the right to make their own decisions is entirely absent from Islamic theocracies. There is no deciding between right and wrong but rather a robotic following of orders. Ibn Warraq quotes one Muslim thinker:
"The Western liberal emphasis upon freedom from restraint is alien to Islam. ... Personal freedom lies in surrendering to the Divine Will. . . . individual freedom ends where the freedom of the [Islamic] community begins. ... Human rights exist only in relation to [Islamic] obligations. ... Those individuals who do not accept these obligations have no rights. ... Much of Muslim theology tends toward a totalitarian voluntarism." Additional links.
An Islamic Reformation: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/opinion/04FRIE.html?todaysheadlines The New York Times, 4 Dec 02 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
What's going on in Iran today is, without question, the most promising trend in the Muslim world. . . . a drive for an Islamic reformation combined with a spontaneous student-led democracy movement. This movement faces a formidable opponent in Iran's conservative clerical leadership. . . . it reflects a deepening understanding by many Iranian Muslims that to thrive in the modern era they, and other Muslims, need an Islam different from the lifeless, anti-modern, anti-Western fundamentalism being imposed in Iran and propagated by the Saudi Wahhabi clerics. This understanding is the necessary condition for preventing the brewing crisis between Islam and the West — which was triggered by 9/11 — from turning into a war of civilizations.
. . . what's going on in Iran today is precisely the war of ideas within Islam that is the most important war of all. We can kill Osama bin Laden and all his acolytes, but others will spring up in their place. The only ones who can delegitimize and root out these forces in any sustained way are Muslim societies themselves. And that will happen only when more Muslim societies undergo, from within, their own struggle for democracy and religious reform. . . .
This struggle in Iran is symbolized by one man, whose name you should know: Hashem Aghajari, a former Islamic revolutionary and now a college professor, who was arrested Nov. 6 and sentenced to death by the Iranian hard-liners — triggering a student uprising — after giving a speech on the need to rejuvenate Islam with an "Islamic Protestantism."
Mr. Aghajari's speech was delivered on the 25th anniversary of the death of Ali Shariati, one of the Iranian revolution's most progressive thinkers. In the speech — translated by the invaluable MEMRI service — he often cited Mr. Shariati as his inspiration. He began by noting that just as "the Protestant movement wanted to rescue Christianity from the clergy and the church hierarchy," so Muslims must do something similar today. The Muslim clergymen who have come to dominate their faith, he said, were never meant to have a monopoly on religious thinking or be allowed to ban any new interpretations in light of modernity.
"Just as people at the dawn of Islam conversed with the Prophet, we have the right to do this today," he said. "Just as they interpreted what was conveyed [to them] at historical junctures, we must do the same. We cannot say: `Because this is the past we must accept it without question.' . . . This is not logical. For years, young people were afraid to open a Koran. They said, `We must go ask the mullahs what the Koran says.' Then came Shariati, and he told the young people that those ideas were bankrupt. [He said] you could understand the Koran using your own methods. . . . The religious leaders taught that if you understand the Koran on your own, you have committed a crime. They feared that their racket would cease to exist if young people learned [the Koran] on their own."
He continued: "We need a religion that respects the rights of all — a progressive religion, rather than a traditional religion that tramples the people. . . .
Mr. Aghajari refused to appeal his death sentence, saying his whole conviction was a farce. But on Monday his lawyer appealed on his own. Mr. Aghajari's fate now hangs in the balance. Watch this story. It's the most important trial in the world today.
[Even better than the reform of Islam would be the total destruction of Islam -- and of all organized religions!]
Muslim nations lag in freedoms
Ottawa Citizen - Muslims anti-freedom: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/story.asp?id=%7B9BC3A2FD-7095-41CE-B67B-AA5073AF1CB3%7D Muslim nations trail the world in freedoms 'There is a dramatic and expanding gap in democracy': report
Bob Harvey, The Ottawa Citizen, Dec 19, 2002
While the world moves toward greater democracy, Muslim countries are going backwards, says a study to be released today in Washington.
"There is a dramatic, expanding gap in the levels of freedom and democracy between Islamic countries and the rest of the world," says Freedom House.
The Washington-based organization has been monitoring threats to peace and democracy since 1955, and says in its annual report that in the past 20 years, 35 non-Islamic countries have joined the ranks of politically free countries, while the number of non-free countries in the Islamic world has grown by 10.
Adrian Karatnycky, co-ordinator of the survey, said "the reality in much of the Islamic world is that democratic voices are opposed not only by tyrannical regimes but also by powerful Islamic political forces, some of them supported by the power of the mosque, which often promotes anti-democratic and anti-western viewpoints."
Fifteen years ago, only 40 per cent of the world's states were electoral democracies; today 63 per cent of the 192 nations are democracies. Freedom House says only 89 of the 121 electoral democracies have a broad respect for human rights and a stable rule of law.
Mr. Karatnycky said while the Muslim world is lagging behind the majority, there is not an inexorable link between Islam and tyranny, or political backwardness, or political under-development. . . .
Mr. Karatnycky said the first three caliphs who succeeded Muhammad were elected by the prophet's closest colleagues. "There is nothing in the Islamic tradition that would interdict the popular will or popular choice," he said. . . .
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are two of the biggest obstacles toward the democratization of the Muslim world, said Mr. Karatnycky. "They are the toughest nuts to crack. They are the spiritual homes of Islam. ..."
He said that although Egypt and Saudi Arabia are strong allies of the U.S., Egypt is one of the more politically repressive countries in the Muslim world, and Saudi is the most backward, most restrictive and most problematic.
More information on the Freedom House survey can be found at www.freedomhouse.org/research/survey2002.htm
© Copyright 2002 The Ottawa Citizen
The Koran (Quran) and violence
~~ ~~ Media Responsibility with Regard to Islam ~~: http://nowscape.com/islam/white_paper_islam_1.htm
Speech (on audio) by Ibn Warraq to an American Atheists
convention (perhaps 45 min. long). Topics: Jihad
as meaning not 'just' moral struggle, but armed aggression, and
world dominance of Islam; suicide vs martyrdom; Paradise;
apologists for Islam arguing that (a) the reader should know
Koranic Arabic (which even the Arabs do not speak or read), and
(b) invalid to quote Koran out of context; . . .
. . .
Talking-head news announcers frequently inform us that Islam is a
peaceful religion. When interviews of representatives of Islam
are presented, the claimant is seldom pressed to explain the
scriptural basis of Islamic intolerance, or why today’s,
faith-based terrorists are Islamic. The news presenters do not
know enough abut Islam.
One thing that is within our power to accomplish in the near term
is to instruct the people who present information to us via the
media. If this is done, it may be possible to let independently thinking
members of the public discover for themselves that religion is
bunk. . .
. The
claimant is rarely asked to explain what the scriptural / spiritual basis of
the terrorism is
thought to be. The answer, of course, is faith in the Koran. The
Koranic dictum should be stated in the press. References should
be given. We must
argue that it can’t be that the Koran is merely
misunderstood. When the Koran urges to kill and to torture the
unbeliever, the Jew or the apostate, there is only one possible
way this can be understood. . . . It is the Taliban
and the like, who understand the Koran as Mohammed intended! For
centuries, the Koran has been interpreted the Taliban way. It is
the fundamentalists who act morally with regard to their Holy
Scripture. This
must be made clear to the public. Once this is understood, anyone
may examine the source of the Koran's authority and compare it
with that of any other holy scripture. That authority, of course,
is faith. Faith can lead to opposite opinions. Because of this,
the question may be asked: What value has faith? . . .
Why I Am Not a
Muslim,
by Ibn Warraq
Raised in the Muslim faith, Warraq came to reject religion and
now spends his time lecturing and writing. He recently authored a
piece "Islam,
The Middle East and Fascism" which critiques the Islamic Holy Book, the
Qur'an.
The Quest for the Historical Muhammad
by Ibn Warraq
Publishers
Weekly: "... Warraq has provided a highly
readable critical survey of the literature of this quest..."
A speech by Ibn Warraq (on audio). Book "Why I am not a Christian"
In today's political climate, we may succeed in demonstrating that Islam, when interpreted as intended by its founders, is a religion that is hateful and vindictive. When criticizing Islam, we could hint at parallels with those elements of Christianity with which Islam is congruent. . . . If you google the net, you will find many references to Islam and the Koran. A glimpse of the dark side of the Koran is shown at http://nowscape.com/islam/ [See * below.]. Today, many of these things would, in the US, be considered hate crimes. . . .
* ~ Is Islam Violent What The Koran says ~: http://nowscape.com/islam/ Do Islam's Central Ideas Incite Violence?
The Holy Qurán Word Search: http://www.orst.edu/groups/msa/quran/search.html The Holy Qurán: Search Results
Searching for the words "cut", and "off". Number of appearances of words: "cut" (28), "off" (46), all together (18).
5.38 As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a retribution for their deeds, and exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.
7.124 "Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will crucify you all."
26.49 Said (Pharaoh): "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely he is your leader, who has taught you sorcery! But soon shall ye know! Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you all!" . . .
MuslimSearch.Com: http://www.muslimsonline.com/search.html
Could the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) Read and Write: http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1194 Archives
Islam - IslamExposed.Com - Dr. Solomon Tulbure: http://www.islamexposed.com/Articles/breaking_manacles.htm Islam exposed
Breaking the Manacles of Islam
A specter is haunting the Mullahs. The specter of Islamic truth. Pardon me for paraphrasing those two famous lines of Karl Marx from his ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party.’ I could find no better sentences than those two lines about the frantic efforts by the Mullahs to cover up the true colors of Islam in the world of Internet. Many recent essays in NFB (News From Bangladesh), secularIslam, Rational Thinking, etc., have exposed the other side of many religions including the Islam. The writers of these essays have taken great risks in terms of their personal safety to expose the intolerance, cruelty, injustices and irrationalities of many facets of Islam, the religion of “Peace.” Their forceful arguments, painstaking researched and extraordinary dedication are really going to shake the very foundation of the religion. I think the Mullahs could never believe that there is so much of disgust and disdain for the irrationalities and the backwardness in Islam in the present-day context. They thought that the fear of death sentence and the declaration of Jihad (Holy War) would silence the voices of rationality, logic and progress. No wonder, the Mullahs are desperate to counter attack with theirs every possible means. Amongst them are the illogical blind quotations of fear, the mindless hate, personal attacks, intimidation, charges of apostasy and blasphemy and what not. If only they could identify and catch those Kafirs and the infidels, I am sure they cannot wait to hang them in public. Unfortunately, the cyber world is too huge for them to start the killing spree. Therefore, they have little choice but to resort to intellectual assassinations.
After reading through a number of those venomous essays by these Islamists, I could categorize them into two broad groups; namely:
1. The hard-core bigots. These Mullahs preach nothing but hatred towards anyone suspected of uttering a single word against Islam. They are completely devoid of any logical or rational thinking. Their languages are filthy (mostly four letter words), full of personal threats, distasteful and incomprehensible writings, etc. They usually judge a Muslim through his/her name. They challenge the writers to declare their apostasy in public so that they can take care of them (that is, kill them). . . .
2. The intellectual bigots: These bigots have very good knowledge of Islam, Koran Hadiths......etc. They are fully aware that what is being written by the Kafirs and the infidels are very difficult if not impossible to refute. These intellectual bigots are frustrated by the logic, rationality, coherence and the realistic arguments extended by the authors. They too wished that these writers were eliminated but then they also feel a little guilty about the open call for their annihilation. So, they resort to psychological killing. This involves the quotations from Koran and Hadiths about the dreadful punishments that will be meted out to those who dare to criticize Islam. They openly declare that whoever questions Islam is no more a Muslim. . . .
An Open Challenge to My Muslim friends: http://humanists.net/avijit/
. . . claim that the Qur'an provides a kind of scientific knowledge which was impossible to acquire by men of that time. This is also a proof that the Qur'an is the word of Allah !!!! . . .
I have read the Qur'an and then the Hadith several times with a free mind and I saw just the opposite picture what my Muslim "scholars" claim. . . .
I wondered whether it is really true that the Qur'an holds such kind of precise knowledge that was impossible to be acquired by the ancient people? . . .
every divine(?) scripture such as the Bible, the Gita and the Vedas hold the same kind of scientific misconceptions. For example here I quote some verses from the Bible and the Vedas to illustrate the same misconception (The Earth is fixed and the Sun rotates): . . .
Allah: http://humanists.net/avijit/article/flat_earth_kasem.htm Allah's Flat Earth and His Cosmos
Some samples of Quranic contradictions for you: http://humanists.net/avijit/article/mirza_contradiction.htm
. . . Holy Qur’an is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, inconsistencies, redundancies, no chronology or chapters, Grammatical errors etc. One can find hundreds of contradictions/errors/inconsistencies in Holy Quran and above mentioned Ayats are just selected samples from the Quran. But still it is a miracle to those who are blind-folded bigot. . . .
“The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”- Oliver Wendell Holmes
The Stupidest Religion: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_22_4.html by Christopher Hitchens
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 4.
The French novelist Michel Houellebecq, whose fictions have become celebrated for their unsparing accounts of sexual and political anomie, is now facing trial on one count and widespread vilification on another. In both cases, his trouble arises from what is loosely called anti-Muslim or anti-Arab sentiment. In a recent interview, he referred to Islam as "the most stupid of all religions." In his latest novel, Platform, his leading character expresses delight whenever he reads that "a Palestinian terrorist, or a Palestinian child or a Palestinian pregnant woman had been gunned down in the Gaza Strip."
The French courts have agreed to hear a formal case brought against Houellebecq for the first remark, which is charged as "racism" by four French Muslim organizations. One can make the clear objection to this that expressions of contempt for religion are by definition not racist (unless leveled at religions like the Dutch Reformed Church or the Mormons, which used to be racially exclusive). In the second case it ought to be an axiom that an author is not ipso facto responsible for the thoughts of his characters. The supposedly blasphemous reflections about Muhammad's wives in The Satanic Verses, for example, occur during the dream of a man described as mentally deranged.
But essential distinctions of this kind have little appeal to the righteous. Even in America, still protected by its First Amendment, there is a tendency to assume that anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feeling is the same, even though most Arab-Americans are Christian (as are perhaps 20 percent of all Palestinians), and even though Islam advertises itself as a universal religion. One unhappy consequence of this is that secular and liberal critics often watch what they say, thus leaving the field to fundamentalist Christians, who often attack Islam in the most scabrous and abusive terms. The next stage is, rather depressingly, a counter-attack by aggrieved American Muslim organizations which, rather than exposing the absurd theology of the Christian loons, claim that it is by definition "hurtful" or "offensive" to attack any religion at all.
Thus, under the cover of pluralism a number of dogmatic orthodoxies acquire an undeserved respect and protection. An early example of this was the "shocked" reaction in 1987 when a Jerry Falwell clone named Bailey Smith observed that "God Almighty does not hear the prayers of a Jew." This is the only instance known to me of an anti-Semitic remark having a basis in fact. After all, there is no such person as God Almighty and thus all prayer by all denominations has the same moral effect as aerobic dancing, if not less. But not even secular Jews thought of making this reply. Instead it was back to the discourse of injured innocence and "insensitivity."
I would not want the job of deciding which monotheism, let alone which faith, was "the stupidest." . . .
Islam makes very large claims for itself. It claims direct divine revelation and inspiration and, depending on which sura or hadith you emphasize, it appears to warrant or at least countenance global proselytism. Its adherents can hardly complain if these tenets are subjected to close scrutiny and even to vivid disagreement. And perhaps a reader can tell me if there is any Muslim country where it is a punishable offense to ridicule or denounce non-Muslim beliefs, including agnostic or atheist ones. The only societies where such cases can be heard are multi-religious systems, which are almost by definition based on secular laws. Many such laws protect ethnic minorities from threat or intimidation, precisely because a member of such a minority is vulnerable for something that he or she cannot alter. That is not the case with weird and optional belief, such as the conviction that one's presence on Earth is due to a heavenly plan.
The British government, too, has recently proposed a law to protect the feelings (or, if you prefer, to subsidize the self-esteem) of religious groups. This would merely extend an already stupid and anachronistic Blasphemy Act, which used to defend the susceptibilities only of Christians and was thus sectarian as well as censorious. But perhaps I can be forgiven for being especially sad about the pious developments in France, which was the first European country to emancipate the Jews and the first to proclaim a secular republic. It's distressing to think that in the birthplace of Voltaire one could not safely utter an equal-opportunity "ecrasez l'infame."
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and The Nation and a professor of liberal studies at the New School in New York. His most recent book is Why Orwell Matters.
Muslim Dissidents Denounce Islam: http://main.faithfreedom.org/ . . . Faith Freedom International echoes the voice of Muslim dissidents that strive for freedom of faith and freedom from Faith in Islamic countries. We are against Hate, not Faith. We revere human rights not human beliefs. . . .
Prologue By Ali Sina
Islam is a religion of peace". This is what our politically correct politicians keep telling us. But what is politically correct is not necessarily correct. The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of hate, of terror and of war.
A thorough study of the Quran and Hadith reveal an Islam that is not being presented honestly by the Muslim propagandists and is not known to the majority of Muslims. Islam as it is taught in the Quran (Koran) and lived by Muhammad, as is reported in the Hadith (Biography and sayings of the Prophet) is a religion of intolerance, inequality, violence, discrimination, superstition, fanaticism, and blind faith. Islam advocates killing the non-Muslims, abuses the human rights of minorities and women. Islam expanded by Jihad (holy war) and forced its way by killing the non-believers and the dissidents. Apostasy in Islam is the biggest crime, punishable by death. Muhammad was a fundamentalist himself therefore fundamentalism cannot be separated from true Islam. Islam, which means submission, demands from its followers to submit their wills and thoughts to Muhammad and his imaginary Allah, a deity that despises reason, democracy, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
I reject Islam a) because of Muhammad’s lack of moral and ethical fortitude and b) because of the absurdities in Quran.
___ a) Muhammad lived a less than holy life. . . .
___ b) An unbiased study of Quran shows that far from being a “miracle” that book is a hoax. Once Quran is scrutinized with rational thinking, almost every sentence proves to be false. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. Could possibly the author of this Universe be as ignorant as it appears to be in Quran? . . .
Where Are the Islamic Moderates?
AlterNet Where Are the Islamic Moderates: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15050
By Mark LeVine and Raymond Baker, AlterNet Jan 28, 2003
As the war on terrorism expands to new fronts, a dangerous deterioration in relations between the United States and the Muslim world is proceeding apace.
Two explanations within U.S. policy-making circles have emerged to explain this hostility, yet both are seriously flawed. A more honest and promising approach requires rethinking our conception of Muslim moderation and adjusting our policies to accord with our highest principles.
The first view of the problem of Islam dominated the Clinton years. It was based on the self-evident "fact" that a once proud Islamic civilization has fallen far behind the West for reasons of its own doing. However, Muslims still have the potential to join the civilized world if, like other developing countries, they would only follow our prescription for establishing a free market and liberal democracy. . . .
Such an explanation at least carried the promise that development – and along with it, a decrease in anti-Americanism – was possible. It's a view that seems to have been disregarded by many senior members of the Bush Administration, who prefer an elaborated version of the "clash of civilizations" thesis . . .
Even as the President speaks of the peaceful essence of Islam, Muslims seem doomed to be modernized by force. Indeed, while our political ideology has shifted, the underlying foundations for U.S. policy has continued to include a commitment to Westernization in the guise of modernatization, . . .
"modernization" has long been seen as inseparable from European imperialism and colonialism, followed by nationalism and Cold-War superpower conflict – each of which have wreaked havoc from Algeria to Indonesia. The belief that "Islam is the solution" emerged because of the failure of the West's model of modernity to bring the advertised freedom, justice, and development. . . .
An alternative approach to overcoming Muslim hostilities is within our reach, but it comes with stiff requirements. First, we must give up the idea that modernization means Westernization. Second, we must accept that moderation with staying power will be moderation on Islamic ground rather than any brand we could pay for or compel. Third, we need to pay attention to the existing authentic centrist voices in the Muslim world, . . .
Egyptian Yusef al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa condemning the attacks as a "crime against society," which was the latest in decades of often courageous positions against the extremists. Yet, because he does not tow the American line and condemns oppressive policies of American allies such as Egypt or Israel, this figure, perhaps the most influential Muslim cleric alive, will not be meeting with senior Bush Administration officials any time soon. Meanwhile, the desperate situation of Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza, the return of corrupt, oppressive and misogynist warlords in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan, and the likelihood that a post-Saddam Iraq will fall into similar chaos or dictatorship are all clear to Qaradawi's followers, and to millions of increasingly inter-connected Muslims (through al-Jazeera and the internet) around the world. . . .
The fact is that authentic Arab and Muslim moderates support conceptions of progress, democracy and human rights compatible with our own – that is precisely why they oppose U.S. policies in the region. In this context, U.S. Government efforts to use (self-described) propaganda funneled through American-financed pop radio stations or Defense Department-funded "Islamic schools" to win hearts and minds only trivializes those commitments and insults those whom we seek to persuade. . . .
Raymond William Baker is Professor of International Politics, Trinity College, author of Islam Without Fear: Egypt and the New Islamists, forthcoming Harvard University Press fall '03. Mark LeVine is Assistant Professor of History at UC Irvine and author of Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine, forthcoming on UC Press.
Go Home. ___ Go to Islam page contents near top of this page.
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca