My Muslim jihadist apologist counterpart over at Malaysia Today (MT), "Mr. Farouk", is still gamely at it. Of course, that necessitated another reply, which is posted at MT. You can see my latest there or just keep reading here.
The Anti-Jihadist Responds- “Respect Works Both Ways”
This response is aimed at ‘Farouk Peru’ in response to my previous comments.
At the outset, I would like declare that I do not condone the acts of Muslims which go against the teachings of Prophet Muhammad.
Cold comfort indeed, once a person becomes acquainted with the actual words, deeds, and teachings of that alleged prophet, Mohammed. Mohammed has been hailed by fourteen centuries of Islam as the perfect soul, the model of behavior that every Muslim must strive to emulate. So what did Mohammed spend his one life on earth doing? According to authentically Islamic sources, here is what Mohammed did in his lifetime:
- He had political opponents murdered (source Bukhari)
- He murdered prisoners of war, sometimes after the most brutal of torture (source Ibn Ishaq)
- He seized the women and children of his victims, using them for sexual favors, taking them as wives and concubines, selling them into slavery for profit, or sometimes all of the above (source Bukhari)
- He was violent with his pre-teen wife and struck her (source Muslim)
- He and his followers stole anything and everything they could get their hands on, in order to finance their movement and obscenely enrich themselves (source Bukhari)
- He had apostates executed on his explicit orders (source Bukhari)
- He and his followers had repeated sexual intercourse with children (source Tabari)
Are these the actions of a ‘godly’ man?
‘Theantijihadist’ is unable to appreciate the existence of Muslims with differing opinions to the fundamentalist type, so intent is he on condemning an entire pan-race and socio-culture.
Wrong. I am in actuality condemning an ideology founded by a 7th century child-molesting psychopathic megalomaniac. If that somehow constitutes ‘racism’ in your mind, so be it.
This is quite typical of anti-Islamic fascists. Instead of analysing how the Quran itself lays the foundational structure of information, they choose to dictate to Muslims how Islam should be.
Hogwash. As a ‘najis kufir’ (the Muslim term for non-Muslims, literal translation ‘dirty unbeliever’), how can I possibly be in any position to dictate to Muslims what Islam should be? I’m not at all interested in telling Muslims how to be Muslims. I am simply reporting the truth on the ideology called ‘Islam’ and the actions taken by many of its followers in its name. My audience, however, includes Muslims and non Muslims, as everyone deserves to know the truth. Whoever you are, you are free to judge my information based on its merits, or act on it however you please.
The fact of the matter is, there is not a single newspaper, television station, or book publisher in Malaysia that would dare reproduce my words here, or any other column I’ve written, for that matter. The same sort of censoring of any sort of criticism of Islam can also be found in every Muslim country—including the supposedly ‘moderate’ ones. So, I ask you, if the ‘truth’ about Islam supposedly only does Islam credit, why are the Muslim authorities everywhere so deathly afraid of it?
Now, Mr. Farouk wants to analyze the Quran, and talk about that tome’s “world-view”. Anyone who has ever sat down to read the Quran has my deepest sympathies. It is an extremely boring, mind-numbing and repetitive book. The Quran, essentially, is nothing but one long vitriolic speech aimed at infidels: saying that they are dumb, blind, stupid, thankless, liars; that they will have boiling water poured on them; that they will be sent to hell where they will be choked with food and without any friends; that Allah hates them; and also loves those who fights against them.
Have you personally visited these countries and met everyone from a Muslim socio-culture who rejected Islam? I’ve personally met Christian converts from Turkey , Morocco and Tunisia who have had no problems becoming Christian in their home country. Indonesia has no such issue either.
Websites such as www.apostatesofislam.com and www.faithfreedom.org are filled with the personal horror stories of apostates from Islam. These are people from all walks of life, ex-Muslims from all over the world, who have in one way or another left Islam (either converting to other faiths or in some cases choosing to be non-religious). I’ve also had the honour of personally meeting some of these brave souls. The persecution suffered by these people at the hands of Muslims is overwhelming and irrefutable. I invite the readers of Malaysia Today to go to these websites and read for yourself the powerful testimonies of these courageous people.
Mr. Farouk, you specifically mentioned Indonesia. Fine, let’s talk about Indonesia. In West Java recently, Islamic thugs forcibly closed another Christian church. Typically, a mob of Islamic militants will invade a church, during services, and desecrate the place. They drive the worshipers out, and attack any clergy, all the time shouting Islamic slogans. Not surprisingly, police investigations into these attacks have gone nowhere. In the last three years in West Java, at least 30 Christian churches have been forced to close in this way. Of course, I’m sure you already knew about all this, so please show me your previously-published statements that condemn Muslim persecution of Christians in Indonesia.
When Abdul Rahman was facing a trial and capital punishment for apostasy in Afghanistan last year, I don’t recall hearing any Muslims calling for him to be treated with leniency. How many Muslims were publicly calling for his release? How many Muslims spoke of his rights to practice his chosen faith in peace? The only Muslims that were on the record speaking about Rahman were the ones that were baying for his death. So, Mr. Farouk, you and your ilk had a chance to publicly call for leniency for Rahman, and you blew it. Furthermore, did you speak up at any time in support of Lina Joy during her six-year legal battle? I rather doubt that, too. Well, I won’t be holding my breath, waiting for you or other ‘moderates’ to speak up on behalf of the persecuted apostates when the next apostasy case comes up.
Are there any Muslim countries on this planet where apostates from Islam can live in freedom and security, free to practice their new faiths—or no faith—as they wish without harassment, bigotry or discrimination? Name one.
And if you feel the Quran implicitly calls for the punishment of apostates, kindly bring forth your evidence. I have written an article about it if you care to answer it.
As previously discussed, Mohammed’s teachings (from reliable ahadith) show quite clearly that apostates should be killed. This is why the majority of Islamic scholars have always agreed on the ‘justness’ of that retrograde Islamic apostacy law (leaving folks like you in the minority—i.e. ‘let’s not kill apostates’—for 14 centuries). So, for the countless apostates murdered by Muslims, the views of Mr. Farouk and others like him are sadly irrelevant. How can Muslims argue against Mohammed himself having apostates executed?
Do you feel that the Quran does not deserve to be quoted in the correct manner?Islam apologists, including Muslims like Mr. Farouk, have gotten very good at thwarting people from reading and understanding the Quran. They do so in the most effective way possible—by appealing to your respect for intelligence. Whenever you cite verses in the Quran, without skipping a beat, they will cry that you “took the verse out of context.” This appeals to people’s sense of having a full, conceptual of understanding of any given thing. If you notice though, they never actually put the verse in context. This is not an appeal to conceptual understanding, as it seems to be, but is used to make you believe that somehow, someway, the verses around a particular verse will change said verse’s identity. They will also tell you whenever you quote a verse from a Quran that you have the “wrong translation.” On some level this appeals to people’s respect for those who take the time to learn another language. But it is utterly ridiculous to think that only those people can judge the Quran—there are many, many translations of the Quran, all of which say essentially the same things. These are nothing but silly, awkward, and for some unknown reason an often effective method of controlling information as to control thought.
How would you respond if I said that the verses you quoted are taken out of context?
Once again, if you pay careful attention, you will find that I condemn evil, no matter who performs it. I have no notions of the so-called ‘Muslim brotherhood’ as an ideology because the Quran talks about the oneness of the ummah of humanity.
Farouk manages to contradict himself in the space of two sentences. First, he says he has no notions of “Muslim brotherhood”, and then right after that mentions the ‘ummah’ which of course, means the ‘community of believers’, i.e. Muslims only. This necessarily excludes those who are not Muslim, i.e. the majority of humanity.
I invite the reader to please scrutinise the racist nature of this individual’s discourse. He quotes one man (Ghazi al-Qusaibi) and then proceeds to say ISLAM justifies. In other words, whatever Muslims speak against barbarisms (and be sure that there are many, including myself), ‘Theantijihadist’ chooses not to hear them…
I could quote 50 or 100 different people who all agreed on what Qusaibi said, and no matter what, I’m sure you would raise the same objection. I do know that Mohammed himself, the one man that matters most to all Muslims, committed many barbarisms in his own lifetime, as I detailed at the beginning of this essay.
So where are all these Muslims who are so eager to criticize the cutting off of hands, the stoning of adulterers, the beheading of apostates, or all the other barbarisms committed by Muslims in the name of Islam? Why are Muslims eager to frenzy over some cartoons (“Motoons”) printed in an obscure Danish newspaper or Abu Ghraib (a series of regrettable incidents where no one died), but are comparatively silent over (for instance) Al Qaeda bombings in Algeria or (another instance) the killing of Christians by Muslims in Nigeria? Where is the Muslim outrage when the Tamil Tigers kill Muslim civilians by the score in Sri Lanka, as happened earlier this year, or when government-supported Janjaweed militias kill tens of thousands of Muslims and displace millions of other Muslims from their homes in Darfur? For all of these atrocities, there is nary a whimper of protest from the OIC, or any other Muslim organization, for that matter. Draw a cartoon of Mohammed, and Muslims call for your death. Muslims slaughter tens of thousands of fellow Muslims, and it’s not a problem.
Overall, I find that Muslims are eager to speak against barbarism so long as it can be somehow plausibly blamed on non Muslims, specifically the so-called ‘Great Satan’ (USA) and the ‘Little Satan’ (Israel). Conversely, I’ve never seen or heard of PAS or UMNO hold a demonstration to protest 9-11, or Beslan, or 7-7, or any other Muslim terrorist attack. But Motoons and alleged Quran flushings were more than enough to send the outraged protesters pouring into KL’s streets (usually right after Friday prayers).
Islam may be a culture, a society, and a political ideology, but it is not a civilization. It is not civilized. And why? It is because Islam rejects the one core principle, the one irreducible principle, the one necessary element of civilization, the one idea without which civilization does not and cannot exist: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Respect their freedom, their lives, their right to be different from yourself, to think and believe differently and live differently. This, civilization does. This, Islam does not do.
You’re a racist not for attacking Islam but for condemning an entire civilisation based on your scant (if that) research into the corpus Islamica.
Having responded to Mr. Farouk again, I would like to end this tract with the following questions about the Quran, which I hope the esteemed Islamic scholar would be kind enough to answer for us:
1. Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?
2. Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?
3. Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?
4. Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?
5. Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?
6. Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?
I would like to thank Mr. Farouk for his time and I look forward to reading his answers.