Islam on Trial: The
Prosecution’s Case against Islam
By Amber
Pawlik
September 11, 2001 changed the world. Islamic
terrorists hijacked American airplanes; flew them
into several, major, symbolic buildings of hers;
causing thousands to fall, crash or burn to their
early death. The terrorists who did it did not do it
for land or money: they did it fully, openly and
proudly in the name of their religion, Islam, being
promised 72 virgins. It thrust unto us Middle
Eastern politics, Islam, and a new enemy. Islam
itself has come into the forefront of public debate
- or at least it should have.
The majority of us have at least a crude knowledge
of Islam and what Islamic countries are like. We
know they live in abject poverty. We know their
progress is slim to none. We know many of them
treat their dogs better than women. We know they
defy just about all Western ideals.
One would think that, especially after September 11,
2001, there would be criticism of Islam coming from
every which way. Feminists, Christians,
capitalists, secularists, human rights activists,
hell even animal rights activists should have
something to say about Islam. We are, after all, a
country with free speech, aren’t we? Yet, even
after September 11, there has been nothing but
haunting silence.
In the current state of the world, Muslims are
involved in almost every war or battle. It was
Muslim terrorists who bombed a train in Madrid
Spain; Muslim terrorists who held a school
hostage in Russia, killing children; Muslim
terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade
Center. The past 1400 years of Islamic history has
been riddled with terrorism, from the days of
Muhammad to Al-Zarqawi.
But, for whatever reason, Islam is above any kind of
critical look or debate. It is given an almost holy
status. People don’t just avoid criticism of it;
they are quick to defend it. Those who criticize
Islam are often banished to the Never
Never Land of political
suicide. The defenses given for Islam are so
hysterical; you would think you just insulted their
mothers or something.
Islam is not the problem, we keep getting told. The
terrorists, they assure us, had the “wrong
interpretation” of the Koran and are not true
Muslims.
We have watched Islamic terrorists behead innocent
civilians. We have been told that this is
completely and totally against Islam.
From the Koran1:
"When thy
Lord spake
unto the angels, 'I will be with you: therefore
stablish ye the
faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the
infidels.' Strike off their heads then, and
strike off from them every finger tip." - Sura 8:12 (Bold mine)
We have watched Islamic terrorists commit “jihad”
against the West. Under no circumstances, we are
lectured, does the Koran tell its followers to
attack nonbelievers.
From the Koran:
"Make war
upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been
given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and
who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have
forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the
truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they
be humbled."
Sura 9:29
We know that the Islamic terrorists envision a world
that is entirely Muslim. Surely this has nothing to
do with the Islam religion.
From the Koran:
“Say to the
infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what
is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they
return to it, they have already before them the doom
of the ancients! Fight then against them till
strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it
God's. If they desist, verily God
beholdeth what they do:" - Sura 8:39-40 (Bold mine)
It is interesting the
responses I usually get when I start quoting the
Koran directly. When I start quoting the Koran,
such as the verses I previously quoted, the
responses I get are usually:
- That I must not be quoting from the Koran but another
book that quotes the Koran, which must be wrong.
- That Muslims believe some parts of the Koran were written
by Satan. (And it must be these bad quotes that
I gave them.)
- That what I quoted to them was only one or two verses and
I must take into consideration the whole book.
(Which I happily will).
- That the translation I am reading is wrong, and the
original Koran is much gentler and nicer.
It is really rather
obvious: quoting what the Koran actually says is
too much for their ears. Shut if off: let them see
and hear no evil.
Today, our
unwillingness to identify the enemy today is so bad,
we can’t even watch movies where the enemy is,
heaven forbid, Islamic
terrorists. Not only will we not create new
fiction, we won’t even report the facts. The bloody
history of Islam is whitewashed in regular history
books and courses. In fact, the more violent Islam
gets, it seems, the more excuses and protection it
gets. If you ever notice, Islam was not called a
“Religion of Peace” before 9/11. Then they kill
3000 people and get called a “Religion of Peace.”
Perhaps it
should be our new slogan: Ignorance is Strength;
Freedom is Slavery; Islam is Peace.
September 11, 2001 changed world politics forever.
The oppression, mass murder and terrorism that
has marked the Middle
East for 1400 years hurled itself unto Western
society. Yet no one is willing to identify the
enemy - scared, not for fear of political
persecution or assassination but of becoming
unpopular. When something so obvious and so
horrible becomes so wrong to talk about: that is
when you know it’s time to talk about it.
Ladies and Gentleman, this is the prosecution’s case
against Islam. I am charging it with creating
oppression, poverty, slavery, rape and terrorism.
The Case against Islam
When it comes to the connection between Islam and
Islamic terrorism, it is our ability to reason - in
this case the ability to read the Koran - that is so
often under attack. Therefore, let us begin by
reviewing our fundamentals: our philosophical
fundamentals.
When reading a book, the two fundamentals involved
are what it is for all of man’s interaction with
reality: existence and consciousness. Existence is
what exists and consciousness is awareness of what
exists. A person’s views
on existence and consciousness, which is their view
on metaphysics and epistemology, is the foundation
of their philosophical beliefs
and will effect every
other aspect of their worldly views. Is
existence firm and absolute or an ever-moldable
flux? Can human consciousness understand existence
or are humans doomed to be in a blind stupor, never
able to understand the reality around them?
Please note that reason is the process by
which man absorbs sensory data and categorizes it in
his mind as to understand it. Therefore reason is
only possible if existence is absolute and man’s
consciousness is potent enough to understand
existence. It is the philosophy of objectivism
that maintains that reality is what it is and man is
capable of understanding it.
When reading a book, what exists is the text and the
degree to which you are conscious of what it says is
the degree to which you focus your mind on it. The
purpose is to study the text so that you can develop
an understanding of it, i.e. discover its identity.
You do not re-invent what you are reading or come to
your own arbitrary conclusion regarding what the
text says: your goal is to come to a clear, precise
understanding of what the text means. The ability
to do this is called reading comprehension.
You do not typically have an “interpretation” of a
text. “Interpretations” are only necessary when some
aspect of reality is confusing, vague or hard to
understand. For instance, an interpreter is needed
to translate one language to another for people, as
the foreign language is otherwise incomprehensible
to those people. “Interpretations” therefore also
imply that only a person with an advanced or
specialized knowledge can interpret something - it
is not open to a lay person. “Interpretations,”
such as the “interpretation” of the law or the
“interpretation” of someone’s behavior are also
generally regarded as only someone’s opinion - only
quasi-based on fact - apt to be right or wrong.
It is revealing that those who discuss Islam always
refer to human understanding of the Koran as a mere
“interpretation.” By identifying human understanding
of the Koran as an “interpretation,” it
automatically establishes the text as fluid,
subjective and moldable - as an incomprehensible
text that anyone can take any different way.
There may perhaps be parts of the Koran that are
confusing and contradictory and indeed need an
interpreter. But if so, one must point out what
text is confusing or contradictory and what
the different “interpretations” thereof might be,
especially, given their claims, as it pertains to
terrorism. This would open the debate up to human
reason. But those who defend Islam do not do this:
instead they typically make a broad, generic
statement that people make the “wrong
interpretation” of the Koran. Broad statements such
as this are not indicative of a confusing or
contradictory text but of an assault on
objectivity itself.
Notice this author’s defense of not being able to
understand a “true Islam.” This is an article
entitled, “What is Real Islam?” by
M.A.Hussain from a
website called
humiliateamerica.com:
“It is impossible to
tell what Islam is objectively and what Islam is
not. There are several problems of interpretation of
religious scriptures which are insurmountable such
that there cannot be “real Islam” or real
Christianity”. The interpretation of religious
scripture whether by a nonbeliever or of any
believer is a subjective process. The religious
scriptures belong to history and history is nothing
but a point of view. The "objective history" or
"objective historical process" is not accessible
whatever methodology you adopt, you can never give
an objective account of history.” (Bold mine;
incorrect punctuation and grammar the author’s.)
Not even history, according the author, is
objectively determinable. This is not just an attack
on the ability to understand Islam but reality
itself.
I
propose that the arguments about the inability to
interpret the Koran are not meant to emphasize the
confusing nature of the Koran but to exempt it
from the Law of Identity. They want you to
regard what is written in front of you in plain
language as not being what it is but that it
can be anything at all. Up can mean down; black can
be white; or any A can be any other non-A.
This same attack on objectivity does not just happen
with the Koran; it has infiltrated all the major
humanities, and even some of the hard sciences. For
instance, indeed in history, the new breed of
historians (known as revisionists) will tell you
that there is no objective history; that it is (of
course), “open to interpretation.” In political
science, new supposed scholars tell us the
Constitution is more of a suggestion than a
commandment, and, of course, “open to
interpretation.” (The Constitution was
designed to be living but this means it can be
amended not re-“interpreted.”)
Why do they do this? So they can do the
interpreting.
History, the Constitution, and
reality get in the way of their ideologies.
When reality gets
in your way, doubt reality.
If you notice, despite the fact that these scholars
believe reality can never be objectively deciphered,
they never become skeptics. One would think
if reality is such a foggy haze that humans can
never objectively decipher, we would be forever
unsure and doubtful of the world around us.
Instead, such new scholars charge right on,
asserting absolute knowledge - “interpreting”
history, law, reality for you.
Notice that with the Koran that they don’t
become skeptics over what the “interpretation” of
the Koran is. Even though interpretations are
generally regarded as not right or wrong, and they
insist the Koran is too “profound” to understand,
they announce that the terrorists most definitely
had the “wrong interpretation.” The Koran is
mostly incomprehensible, but apparently they have
the magical ability to understand its true meaning
and dictate it to us.
This is a game that has been being played for
decades. This attack on objectivity stems from the
root, from the philosophical level, from our ideas
of existence and consciousness. The ideas that have
permeated academia for decades have been the notion
that reality isn’t real; that reason is impotent in
understanding reality. This philosophical
foundation was formalized into an official
philosophical system by Immanuel Kant.
Kant attacked reason (and, therefore, reality) from
the inside: by re-defining it. Allow me to
re-emphasize the definitions of some terms.
Reason is the process by which man absorbs
sensory data and uses it to understand the world
around him. It doesn’t matter how big or small the
knowledge is - from understanding what a “cat” or
“dog” is, by using your own five senses and rational
mind - to understanding any elaborate science.
Logic is the method by which man
processes that knowledge, making accurate, or rather
non-contradictory, identifications of
reality. (Forgive me for being redundant; it is
only for explanation purposes). Mysticism is
to develop a conclusion or understanding of the
world through some non-sensory means, such as a
person who believes in God based on faith.
Kant said that reason was “a priori,” that is to say
“without experience.” How can man have any
knowledge, understanding or enlightenment while void
of reality? Kant made the most offensive attack on
reason possible: smearing it by defining reason
as mysticism, i.e. to develop knowledge with
no sensory data, i.e. no evidence
This is why academic elites are unabashed in
dismissing reality, history, and the obvious in
front of your eyes in favor of their bizarre
ideologies. Attacking reality doesn’t seem awkward
or illogical to them; it seems sophisticated - the
very definition of reason. Reality is an
ever-changing and contradictory flux, apt to be
whatever they say it is. Everything is considered
moldable today, from history to human nature itself.
Kant laid the groundwork for full-scale,
institutionalized propaganda.
This is the same game being played with the Koran.
It comes utterly natural to them to portray the
Koran as being subjective, fluid, and totally
incomprehensible; outside the realm of human mind.
They wield manipulation as effectively as a knight
with a sword.
There is one thing in the way of their schemes:
your rational mind. While thwarting everyone’s eyes
away from the obvious, their enemy is that one
person who insists on facts and demands evidence.
Therefore, they need to make you doubt your own
mind, i.e. your ability to reason. In the case of
the Koran, this means your ability to read a book
correctly.
Therefore they need to infuse waves of doubt and
confusion over anyone trying to read to understand
the Koran. “You are no Islamic scholar!” they will
shout at you. “The Koran is so profound!” they
cry. “It has so many commentaries and notes!”
Don’t even bother to read it, you will not
understand it.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Koran is not hard to read
or understand. These are merely the hysterics of
intellectual snobs trying to create an inferiority
complex in you.
Notice that there is a double standard. If someone
says the Koran is peaceful, it is taken as plain,
simple fact, regardless that said person has usually
never even read the Koran. But the person who
challenges Islam is held to the most excruciating of
standards to prove themselves and their ability to
judge the Koran. Unless you read the Koran in its
original language, under a renowned scholar in
Mecca, they will announce you have no idea what you
are talking about. Indeed, it is usually people who
have never read the Koran who are the most
hysterical in these kinds of accusations.
When these
methods of don’t work, they can always resort to ad
hominems: calling you
an “idiot,” “moron,” etc simply for having the
“incorrect” view. However, they don’t even have to
do this anymore.
Today, it is not just limited to a select few who
want to insult you: it is popularly accepted to
call anyone who questions Islam a “bigot” or
“ignorant.” People have been “educated” from birth
that to challenge Islam is evil. Nothing could be
more anti-enlightened, anti-reason and downright
destructive.
Islam apologists, including Muslims themselves, have
gotten very good at thwarting people from reading
and understanding the Koran. They do so in the most
effective way possible: by appealing to your
respect for intelligence. Whenever you cite a verse
in the Koran, 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 Koran 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 Koran: there are many, many translations of the
Koran, all of which say essentially the same
things. These are nothing but silly, awkward, and
for some unknown reason - often effective - method
of controlling information as to control thought.
One would think if Muslims were so proud of their
religion, they would be encouraging people to read
their holy text to prove its righteousness not
thwarting people away from it at every step. People
who are just want nothing more than for
others to take a good, hard look at them - not
generalizing them with others or brushing them
aside. An innocent person being charged with
murder, for instance, will want and demand all the
facts of the case to come out, to shine as much
light on the case as possible, and to be allowed to
take the stand to make his or her case. The unjust
person seeks to manipulate and deceive others,
always trying to stop people from taking too hard of
a look. For an example, see the lying, deceptive
ways of any criminal.
So let’s do just that: shine pouring light onto the
Koran to see what it is. We are going to
give Islam what it frankly does not deserve: the
nicety of a trial.
In order to judge Islam, I did what most Islam
apologists and most Muslims (many of whom are
illiterate) did not do: I read the Koran.
I
find it interesting that interest in the Koran
skyrocketed after 9/11. But there are hardly any
commentaries describing what is actually in the
Koran.
Anyone who has ever sat down to read the Koran has
my deepest sympathies. It is an extremely boring,
mind-numbing and repetitive book
The Koran is considered the written word of
Muhammad’s teachings, who was inspired by the angel
Gabriel. According to the introduction to the Koran
I read in paper back, Muhammad was born into a poor
family but lived in a wealthy city. He grew up
without a father and ended up marrying a rich widow
(and then went on to have many different wives,
including at least one six-year-old girl). The
Koran was written down by others as he could not
read nor write.
The Koran is broken up into “Suras,”
which are like books in the Bible or chapters in a
book. There are 114 Suras
and over 6100 verses. The
Suras range in size from as small as 4 verses
to as many as 286. For the most part, the larger
Suras are at the
beginning and they get progressively smaller until
the very short Suras at
the end.
This is how the very beginning of the Koran starts
out.
Sura 2:3-6, which falls on the first page of the Koran:
“And who believe in
what hath been sent down to thee, and in what hath
been sent down before thee, and full faith have they
in the life to come.
These are guided by
their Lord; and with these it shall be well.
As to the infidels,
alike is it to them whether thou warn them or warm
them not – they will not believe.
Their hearts
and their ears hath God sealed up; and over their
eyes is a covering.
For them, a severe chastisement!”
The very beginning of the Koran starts out with
stating that nonbelievers are wrong, wrong, wrong
and believers are good, good, good. It doesn’t say
what the believers should do - there are no
principles, values or morals
laid out - just that non-believers are wrong.
It didn’t take long for me to be utterly shocked at
what I read in the Koran:
"O our Lord!
punish us not if we
forget, or fall into sin; O our Lord!
and lay not on us a load
like that which thou has laid on those who have been
before us; O our Lord! and
lay not on us that for which we have not strength:
but blot out our sins and forgive us, and have pity
on us. Thou art our protector: give us victory
therefore over the infidel nations." Surah 2:286 (Bold mine)
This, quite frankly - is it! The Koran 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
I
wanted to be able to give you, my reader, some kind
of percentage estimate of just how much the Koran
deals with nothing but infidels. I could give you
an eyeballed estimation of how much of it is nothing
but hatred at infidels, but I would not expect you
to take my word for it. Going through the Koran and
summing up every single verse to get a percentage
would be way too cumbersome. However, I thought of
a way to get across to you, my reader,
a warranted percentage:
I could take a random sampling of verses from the
Koran and make projections from there.
Now this is not some sort of literary review, not
that the Koran is complex enough to warrant a
literary review. I performed the study I did, at
first, solely to get an accurate percentage to
present.
I
originally did a small study. I wanted at least 30
samples because statistically, so as long as there
are 30 samples, the central limit theorem applies,
i.e. the sampling is large enough to be
statistically significant. I tried to think of a
fair way to pick samples. Had I gone through and
just pointed to verses, I likely would have gotten
accused of cherry picking. So I took verse 10 from
randomly chosen Suras.
I did this to show I was not picking one verse over
another. I ended up with 34 verses. You can read
the verses I took along with commentary regarding
what context the verse is in, why I assigned it to
the category I did and the calculations of my
confidence interval
here.
I
was really quite pleased with the results: I felt
they provided a nice broad overview of the Koran and
even captured one good verse!
It also hit some of the
bigger but smaller aspects of the Koran - the fact
that it mentions Noah's Ark many times (where it
gleefully describes how the infidels drowned); that
it thinks infidels are utterly thankless; that Allah
actually makes nonbelievers not believe, etc.
These were the results
18/34
(52.9%) - over half - of these random verses is
vitriol aimed at infidels.
6/34 (17.6%) Deal with Allah
5/34 (14.7%) Deal with
believers
4/34 (11.8%) Deal with Day
of Judgment or Day of Doom
1/34
(3.4%) ... is a good verse! (Do not steal from the
poor / Give to the poor)
However, upon some contemplation I
decided that my study could be done better. Perhaps
there might have been some bias by only picking
verse 10 from the verses. I took the verses from an
online Koran (it was easier to cut and paste quotes
from an online source), and it was an anti-Islamic
site so perhaps there was some bias. (It turns out
there was not; the same translation is used by some
pro-Islamic sites). I also felt there was at least
one major theme that was ignored in my sampling:
how Islam treats women. The confidence interval I
ended up with was that one could be 95% confident
that the percentage of hatred of infidels in the
Koran was between
36.1% and 69.7%. That really is not
very tight.
So I did a bigger study. This time I took it from a
pro-Islamic site. I wanted to have at least 200
samples. I tried to think of the most diplomatic
way to take random verses. I could go in and take
every 30th verse, giving me approximately
200 verses. But that would skip over several
Suras as many of them
only have 5 - 9 verses in them. So I decided to
give the verses a representation similar to the way
our founding fathers set up our Congress: every
Sura (just like every
state) would be given a certain minimum
representation and then larger
Suras (just like larger states) would also
have some kind of larger representation. So I took
one verse from each Sura,
thereby representing each Sura.
I took the verse right in the middle. That gave me
114 verses. I wanted about 86 more. So then I went
through and took every 70th verse. This
naturally gave the larger Suras
more of a representation. I ended up with 201
verses.
And, after hours of work, the results
are in: they are exactly the same.
For the percentage I was most interested in, how
much of the Koran is nothing but hatred at infidels,
it was exactly at 53%. I was also quite happy that
this sampling captured several verses about women.
The confidence interval was also much better this
time: with
95% confidence, we can say the
proportion is somewhere between 45.8% and 59.6%.
You can read the verses I took, my commentaries, and
the calculation of the confidence interval
here.
Here are the results of my larger study:
106/201
(52.7%) is hatred aimed at infidels, defined as
*Threats towards infidels
either in the after life or this life
*Degrading infidels by calling them evil, stupid,
blind, deaf, liars, thankless, etc.
*Calls to
fight against them.
*Verses that say "except the
believers" when wishing death on nonbelievers were
counted as hatred since avoiding death is not a
positive to believers
*The
threat or insult can be aimed at infidels in general
or any specific infidel.
50/201 (24.9%) Deals with
believers, defined as
*Mentioning them
*Saying they are righteous
*Saying they will get good
things
*Any mentions of one of the
prophets was snuck into this category too
23/201 (11.4%) deal with
Allah,
*Who he is
*That he is almighty
*Any of his creations
10/201 (5%) deal with the
Day of Doom or the Day of Judgment
*Either the Day of Doom when
destruction is sent on the earth or
*Day of Judgment when all
are judged before Allah
*Any message pertaining to
how God records what men do was assigned this
category
4/201 (2%) are anti-woman
*That it’s OK to beat a
woman
*Women and slaves get
married off but have no choice in the matter and is
very self-serving to Muhammad or men in general.
4/201 (2%) deal with giving to the poor in some way
2/201 (1%)
deal with some kind of Muslim custom or etiquette,
for instance
*How to divorce your wife
1/201 (0.5%)disapproves
of a man who murdered someone, but only because it
was for the wrong reason to kill someone.
1/201 (0.5%) actually says it is OK for people to
have their religion while Muslims have theirs
Over 50% of the Koran deals with nothing but hatred
aimed at infidels. You will notice Allah is
mentioned a lot, as well as the goodness of
believers and the Day of Doom/Judgment, the former
being a day when the Koran gleefully exclaims that
Allah will send destruction to the earth and destroy
the infidels. Notice how much of the Koran that
deals with not just infidels but with the theme of
believers verses nonbelievers, setting up believers
as holy, righteous, almost perfect human beings and
nonbelievers not just as wrong but as wretched
scum. If you add up the number of verses that deal
with infidels, believers, Allah, and the Day of
Judgment/Doom, that percentage is a full 94%. This
is really the only thing in the Koran as the Koran
itself readily admits: "... This book is no
other than a warning and a clear Koran,
To warn whoever
liveth; and, that
against the Infidels sentence may be justly given."
Sura 36:69-70
You may notice that details outlining Muslim customs
and etiquette do not take up much room in the
Koran. In fact, Ramadan, from what I can tell, is
only mentioned once in the Koran. You can see how
seriously Muslims take Ramadan. Now imagine how
seriously they take the rest of the 94% of the
Koran.
There is no moral system outlined in the Koran -
with the exception of allowing men to beat their
wives, sleep with their slaves, and there is an
occasional, “give to the poor.” There certainly
is no unequivocal “Do not
kill”; “Do not steal”; or “Do not lie,” let alone
any other insight into how to behave properly as a
human being. Most of the “moral” guidance given in
the Koran is not a restraint on humans but
permission to do what they want - mostly for men to
do what they want.
The Koran is very self-serving to men and especially
Muhammad when it comes to having access to women.
It promises men young virgins in heaven with “supple
breasts” and “large brown eyes,” but what about the
women? Muhammad had up to fifteen wives at one
time, but the rest of the believers were limited to
four. Sura 66:1 shows
not only the self-serving nature of the Koran for
Muhammad but the entire purpose of the Koran itself:
"Why,1 O Prophet!
doest thou hold that to
be FORBIDDEN which God hath made lawful to thee,
from a desire to please thy wives, since God is
Lenient, Merciful? "
Sura 66:1
Note 1 from
Sura 66 further
clarifies this verse:
1 The first verses of this Sura
were revealed on occasion of Muhammad's reviving
affection for Mary, a Copt slave sent him by the
governor of Egypt from whom he had recently sworn to
his wife Hafsa to
separate entirely. Hafsa,
who had been greatly incensed at their amour, of
which Muhammad had himself informed her,
communicated the matter in confidence to
Ayesha, from whose
altered manner, probably, the prophet found that his
secret had been betrayed. To free Muhammad from his
obligation to Hafsa was
the object of this chapter.
Muhammad had told his wife that he would stop having sex
with a slave. However, he came back to tell her
that he is allowed because Allah does not forbid
it. Hence, to hell with her wishes!
Indeed, the Koran gives men full right to have sex with
female slaves and their allotted four wives:
"It is not
permitted thee to take other wives hereafter, nor to
change they present wives for other women, though
their beauty charm thee, except slaves whom thy
right hand shall possess. And God
watcheth all things."
Sura 33:52
Thus
my charges of rape and slavery against Islam.
I propose the Koran is nothing but a rationalization:
Muhammad’s rationalization to do whatever he wants
in the name of “religion.”
A verse in the Koran that needs no further comment:
"And we said, 'Take in
thine hand a rod and
strike15 with it, nor break
thine oath.' Verily, we
found him patient!" - Sura
38:43
NOTE 15 IN SURA 38:
"Thy wife; - on whom he had sworn that he would
inflict an hundred blows, because she had absented
herself from him when in need of her assistance, or
for her words (Job ii.9). The oath was kept, we are
told, by his giving her one blow with a rod of a
hundred stalks. This passage is often quoted by the
Muslims as authorising
any similar manner of release from an oath
inconsiderately taken."
The only arguable “good” verses in the Koran are
commandments to give to the poor, which according to
the study I did accounts for about 2% of the Koran.
Some may argue that giving to the poor is a good
thing. Perhaps. But, in
the Koran, it is couched inside commandments of NOT
getting wealthy.
"These are they who purchase this present life at the
price of that which is to come: their torment shall
not be lightened, neither shall they be helped."
Sura 2:80
"Let not prosperity in the land on part of those who
believe not, deceive thee.
Tis but a brief enjoyment. Then shall Hell be their
abode, and wretched the bed!"
Sura 3:196
"... What!
prefer ye the life of this world to the next?
But the fruition of this mundane life, in respect of
that which is to come, is but little." Sura 9:38
And if this isn’t malicious enough, the Koran’s wish for
people who have wealth:
"Let not,
therefore, their riches or their children amaze
thee. God is only minded to punish them by these, in
this life present, and that their souls may
depart while they are unbelievers."
Sura 9:55 (Bold mine)
The Koran is hostile to any kind of wealth, pleasure or
success on this earth. Even having children is
considered a test from God of where a Muslim’s
loyalties lie. Man is meant to remain humble with
only modest earnings, pouring most of his earnings
to the cause of Islam. How can business,
technology, art, music, or any other form of wealth
or happiness develop out of this? Those who
“purchase this present life” like this, according to
Islam has done so at the price of the afterlife.
Given Muslims, Muslims who follow the Koran anyway,
are forbidden any pleasure while on this
earth, death must feel
like liberation to them
Thus
my charge of creating
poverty against Islam.
What has a tendency to shock most people about Islam
and the Koran is its belief in predestination, which
you may notice in the study I performed. Allow me
to introduce you to one of the biggest theological
contradictions of all time. The Koran is filled
with threat after threat thrown at nonbelievers.
And yet the Koran says that it is Allah who causes
people to believe or not believe.
"He whom God
guideth is the guided,
and they whom he misleadeth
shall be the lost." Sura
7:177
"No soul can
believe but by the permission of God: and he shall
lay his wrath on those who will not understand."
- Sura 10:100
"And they who
believe not say, 'Unless a sign be sent down to him
from his Lord ...' SAY: God truly will mislead whom
he will; and He will guide to Himself him who
turneth to Him,”
Sura 13:27
"Had God pleased,
He could have made you one people: but He
causeth whom He will to
err, and whom He will He
guideth: and ye shall
assuredly be called to account for your doings."
Sura 16:95
So, if God and God only can cause people to not
believe, then why all the threats? What good will
they do? Whose fault is it that they are
nonbelievers and why should they be punished for
something out of their control? (I argued that the
Koran had an identity, i.e. a specific meaning; I
never promised it would make sense.)
Imagine you are a Muslim and want more than anything
to be a good Muslim and to get into heaven. How do
you know that Allah will pick you to be one that he
will guide? Every person, according to Islam, has
no control over his fate but rather is at the mercy
of Allah’s whim.
This belief in predestination is not just mysticism;
it is much worse. Not only do men gain knowledge
through faith only; it is only some men (and the
Koran says only a few men) are privy to such
knowledge. And now the most pressing question: if
all the world is to be
Muslim, as the Koran commands, but people cannot be
converted, how can that happen? There is only one
way.
Almost the entire Koran is dedicated to delegating
to infidels an inferior status. They are called
blind, stupid and ignorant. No proof is given of
why they should believe; Muhammad performed no
miracles for people. When some skeptics asked for
proof, the response was:
"And when ye said, 'O Moses! we will not believe thee until we see God plainly;' the
thunderbolt fell upon you while ye were looking on:"
Sura 2:52
Infidels are accused of being thankless. The Koran
says infidels promise that they will believe in God
if God relieves them of their affliction, but when
God does, they forget him. Infidels mock the
prophets when they come to give their message to
them. All of this sets
up for what the Koran, at heart, is: one long
battle cry against infidels.
I
find it interesting that the Koran is not in
chronological order. It was re-arranged, and
interestingly enough, most of the downright violent
Suras were put at the
beginning.
"Is it not proved
to those who inherit this land after its ancient
occupants, that if we please we can smite them for
their sins, and put a seal upon their hearts, that
they hearken not?” Sura
7:98
“Say to the
infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what
is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they
return to it, they have already before them the doom
of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife
be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's …"
- Sura 8:39-40
"And when the
sacred months are passed, kill those who join other
gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize
them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every
kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and
observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then
let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful."
Sura 9:5
Yes, this is straight from the Holy Book of the
religion that gets called a “Religion of Peace.”
Muslims are commanded to fight. Only the weak are
excused.
"It shall be
no crime on the part of the blind, the lame, or the
sick, if they go not to the fight. But whoso shall
obey God and His Apostle, He shall bring him into
the gardens 'neath which
the rivers flow: but whoso shall turn back, He will
punish him with a sore punishment." Sura 48:17
After fighting, believers have a right to the
infidel’s houses.
“And He made
you heirs to their land and their dwellings and
their property, and (to) a land which you have not
yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.” Sura 33:27
Thus my charge of
oppression against Islam.
The Koran is clear on when fighting can stop. Some
may say that the Koran says fighting can stop once
“peace” is made, which is how the following is
watered down in some translations:
"Yet if they turn
to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost, then
are they your brethren in religion. We make clear
our signs to those who understand."
"But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths
and revile your religion, then do battle with the
ring-leaders of infidelity - for no oaths are
binding with them - that
they may desist." Sura
9:11-12
Muslims are taught to wage war on
nonbelievers. It is written in plain language.
Muslims are to fight until nonbelievers convert or
pay alms. All else are to be killed.
Ladies and
gentlemen, thus my charge of terrorism
against Islam.
Let me remind you of the September 11, 2001
attacks. Along with the Pentagon (and another plane
which never made its destination of the White House
as some courageous heroes took it down before it
could get there), the Islamic terrorists targeted
the twin towers of the World Trade Center: symbols
of American wealth and prosperity.
"And when we
willed to destroy a city, to its affluent ones
did we address our bidding: but when they acted
criminally therein, just was its doom, and we
destroyed it with an utter destruction" - Sura 17:17 (Bold mine)
"We will not
burden a soul beyond its power: and with us is a
book, which speaketh the
truth; and they shall not be wronged:
But as to this Book, their hearts are plunged in
error, and their works are far other than those of
Muslims, and they will work those works,
Until when we lay hold on their affluent ones
with punishment; lo! they
cry for help:"
Sura 23:64-66 (Bold
mine)
I
will remind you the reason why the terrorists were
willing to kill themselves to kill Americans: they
were promised 72 virgins in heaven.
"But, for the
God-fearing is a blissful abode,
Enclosed gardens and vineyards;
And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in
age."
Sura 78:31-33
"But the
pious shall be in a secure place,
Amid gardens and fountains,
Clothed in silk and richest robes, facing one
another:
Thus shall it be: and we will wed them to the
virgins with large dark eyes." Sura 44:51-54
The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001
did not do so in the name of their country or for
any demand, such as money or land: they did it
openly and proudly in the name of Islam. They
were not misguided; they were in every way Islamic.
The very last Suras in
the Koran are very short and riddled with cries
about the evilness of infidels. Even as I read
them, I could feel the burning hatred of infidels
that one is meant to feel after reading them. These
ending Suras can be
considered chants - short, quick, hysterical chants
- against infidels.
Some will insist that my verses were totally lifted
out of context. This argument does not have much
merit. As you can tell from my study, the “context”
of just about all verses in the Koran is a sea of
hatred. It is in fact the Islam apologists who do
not put things in context. Islam apologists comb
the Koran for any and all “good” quotes and take it
as proof that the Koran is peaceful. For instance,
there is a quote in the Koran which says Muslims can
have their religion and other people can have
theirs. This may seem good until you realize that,
in the Koran, it says other religions may exist with
Muslims, but they are to live as second class
citizens, paying taxes to Muslims.
The other argument usually given is
that the Koran does call for violence but only in
self-defense. In some translations of the Koran, the
phrase “in case of war” or “in case the infidels
attack you” is conveniently placed in all calls for
violence. This really is nothing more than a
blatantly misleading lie. Muslims who say this are
taking advantage of taqiyya
(or taqiyah), an
allowance for Muslims to lie. While
taqiyya can mean that if
a Muslim feels his life is in danger he can lie; it
can also mean a permission to lie in general.
According to
fact-index.com,
taqiyya can essentially
mean that, “[A] Muslim is allowed to say untruths to a non-Muslim if in their
heart they still respect the truths that they
externally deny.”
I
have noticed Muslims downright lying through their
teeth in public about true Islam. It is frustrating
and flabbergasting. However, knowing about
taqiyya brings it full
circle that they are in fact
lying. But I often wondered: why? If they
really are interested in destroying America (and
when you dig deeper most Muslim fundamentalists,
especially ones willing to lie for Islam, are),
why would they lie to opponents? Why do they
care what their enemies think? But I believe I
figured it out: it is like an enemy fighter who
waves a white flag, insisting they are peaceful,
causing you to drop your weapons, then opens fire.
However, even so, let’s assume it was true that the
Koran calls for violence only in self-defense. Why
does it put it in such blatantly collectivist
terms? Why is it one group, Muslims, only
allowed to defend themselves against another
group, infidels?
The fact is, all hate
movements have been marked by this same thing:
victimology and
collectivism. They convince themselves that they are
a victimized, oppressed group of another group -
that they are being
attacked or held down by another group - then launch
a war. It is never specific people who have
been hurt by other specific people, but by a
broad, generic group of "Jews" or "bourgeois" or
"nonbelievers."
The Koran is not very unequivocal in stating that
enemies as people who threaten your life.
Infidels, according to the Koran, are by
definition enemies.
“And when ye
go forth to war in the land, it shall be no crime in
you to cut short your prayers, if ye fear lest the
infidels come upon you; Verily, the infidels are
your undoubted enemies!” Sura 4:102 (Bold mine.)
“They (the polytheists) sell the signs of God for a mean
price, and turn others aside from his way: evil is
it that they do!
They regard not in a believer either
ties of blood or faith; these are the
transgressors!”
Sura 9:9-10 (Bold mine.)
I
asked a Muslim once about Muhammad. Muhammad was
obviously a warlord - apparently the very first
Islamic terrorist to hijack the Islam religion.
This man I talked to insisted that that Islam was a
religion that advocated violence only in
self-defense. I asked him if Muhammad fought in
self-defense or in aggression. He answered, “both.” So I asked him why Muhammad fought in
aggression, perhaps it was a pre-emptive strike
against enemies about to strike. And, if it was a
pre-emptive strike, I asked him if Muhammad had
significant intelligence data to suggest that
“enemy” nations were about to attack him. He told
me that Allah “in his infinite wisdom” told Muhammad
that these people were his enemies.
This is the problem with Islam and this is the
problem with blind faith. There are no prescribed
rules for who is an enemy and who is not. Whoever
is perceived to be an enemy is an enemy.
Everything about Islam prepares its people to be
fighters. It riles them with hatred. It prods them
to fight. Even the “holidays” in Islam trains
fighters. Take for instance Ramadan. Instead of
feasting and celebrating, Muslims are to sacrifice
during the daylight hours for a month. I propose
that this is an effective way to train its followers
for war. Besides the practical ability to go
without food for extended amounts of times, it
trains people to accept a tough life. The only
place you will see this kind of behavior in America
is for various types of military training.
This isn’t a matter of clamoring over a few verses
or of deciding whether or not some verses contradict
other verses in the Koran. This is about the
fundamental theme of the Koran, which is:
burning hatred of infidels and wishes of death and
destruction for them. Any Muslim who picks up the
Koran and takes it seriously will at the very least
believe infidels are evil and deserving of death.
Islam is a fighting ideology with an uncanny hatred
for those who don’t believe as they do. But don’t
take my word for it. Please, by all means, read the
Koran for yourself.
Many people, naïve to Islam, will point to the fact
that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and
not all of them become terrorists. True, they do
not. The problem is not the regular people but the
leaders. Most people, anywhere, just accept the
major philosophy/religion of their time and usually
do not follow or take it very seriously. Observe
that it isn’t the poor or ignorant who typically
become terrorists but the rich and educated, i.e.
the ones who are capable of understanding the Koran
and have the means to implement what it says. This
is about what Islam is as an ideology and
what the ramifications will be when adopted.
My detractors might give some other reasons for why
terrorism is created. Typically, many assign the
cause of terrorism to some pet cause that they
have. Feminists blame the “patriarchy”. Socialists
blame it on “poverty.” These are obviously grounded
not in reality but ideology. They are not honest
evaluations; they would rather continue grinding
their axe against men, the wealthy, whoever it is
they hate. Blaming it on “poverty” is particularly
sneaky. It is simply not true; most terrorists are
middle class if not filthy rich. When the religious
fundamentalists are poor, they do not have the means
to fight. It is when they became wealthy, recently
mostly from oil money, that they can launch bigger,
more effective attacks. Blaming it on poverty is
sneaky: it suggests the solution is to pour more
money - more money to go to jihad - into their
hands. Indeed, what we need is the exact opposite:
we need to starve them of all resources, especially
financial ones.
Some try to argue that Islam has produced scientific
achievements in the past. Most people tend to
attribute the invention of Algebra to Muslims. But
it was not Muslims or even Arabs that discovered
Algebra: it was the Iranians. The Iranians have a
rich history of enlightenment and are more
influenced by their heritage, which is one that
emphasizes education and scholarship, than
religion. Another person some point to is a man
named Razi, who made
advancements in medicine, as evidence of Muslim
accomplishment. But Razi
was not an Arab or a Muslim but again an Iranian.
In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote
several books denouncing faith and upholding reason
and had to live as a heretic.
Razi was to the Muslim world what Galileo or
Copernicus was to ours.
It should be obvious to Western people: faith,
mysticism and religion are antagonistic to science,
reason and progress. We can easily see how
Christianity was responsible for The Dark Ages but
refuse to see how Islam is responsible for the
violence and primitive life in the Middle East.
Islam cannot even uphold a decent society let
alone a prosperous one. Progress is not some kind
of gift from the heavens. If you look at all
successful societies, you will see the influence of
one man: Aristotle. Progress requires a
commitment to reason. The only way for peace or
stability to come to the Middle East is for Islam to
leave and Enlightenment to reign.
One would think that
“liberals” would be the first to condemn Islam. It
is the polar opposite of all of their stated values
and they have a tendency to think they are
enlightened. But, eerily enough, they almost seem
to side with Islam; although they go after
Christianity with an unusual tenacity. This seems
odd, since Islam is by far a more faith-based and
hateful religion than Christianity. And, while I
disagree with Christianity, it upholds at least a
decent, stable moral framework for people to
co-exist peacefully. Islam does not. The fact that
liberals speak out against Christianity, allegedly
in the name of reason, but not Islam shows that the
left is not anti-faith but anti-values.
If you notice, leftists didn’t embrace Islam until
they realized its potential for terrorism. This
speaks volumes.
Even if we take down every Islamic
dictatorship in existence now that harbors and
finances terrorists, so as long as this malignant
ideology is around, it will inspire its followers to
pick up and fight infidels. We attempted to fight
communism militarily, fighting aggressive communist
nations and arming ourselves up to our armpits, to
fail. For over a half of a century we refused to
call communism itself evil.
Then, in the
1980s, Ronald Reagan was willing to step up to the
plate and challenge communism ideologically.
Communism came tumbling
down with hardly a fire shot. Like with Islam, for
decades we were told it was “bad people” running the
communist countries that was
the problem. It was not; like with Islam, the
problem is the ideology. I am however more hopeful
that people will call Islam evil, and sooner, as if
people can see how communism, which comes in the
package of equality and peace, is an evil ideology;
they can certainly see how Islam is evil.
Never
underestimate the power of a simple, consistent,
moral argument against the ideology of our
enemies. If we are
going to fight terrorism, we need to fight the
ideology that inspires terrorism.
As far as
those hysterical people who say that challenging
Islam is akin to starting a mass genocide: fighting
- and winning - in the realm of ideas is a far more
humane and peaceful way to end threats to our lives
and nation.
Most seem to believe
that Islam needs to be “secularized” for peace and
freedom to come to the Middle East. Frankly, this
is just a politically correct way to say Islam is
the problem. Whether you believe Islam has to be
“secularized” or eradicated, the simple fact remains
that Islam is the problem. Until we are willing to
prosecute Islam as a violent religion: our war on
terror will never end.
The jury is out. May
all those with a rational mind judge
accordingly.
Reference
-
J.M.
Rodwell,
The Koran
(New York: Dulton,
1977).
Amber
Pawlik
