Thursday, 16 July 2009

Is ‘Free’ Speech a Product of Secular Intolerance?

Response to the article “Is it only Mr. Bean who resists this new religious intolerance?”1

Driven by secular intolerance and xenophobia, once again Islam and Muslims are maligned in the abovementioned article using the age old excuse of ‘free’ speech. Across the Atlantic Ocean their American cousins are much more candid where anti-Islamic diatribe is constantly propagated and often with vulgarity. Although the holy-secular-warriors brag about their opposition to all religions but in reality they are primarily targeting Islam and Muslims. That begs the question, why, and why use vulgar anti-Islamic diatribes as opposed to debate the issues objectively. The following points will try to explicate the reasons.

A) Cowardice – When the human instincts functions devoid of basic ethics the weak ones are inevitably targeted. Since the Muslim communities virtually have no voice in the corporate run mass media they are an easy target for the vultures. So, it has become fashionable to engage in Islam-bashing and the more powerful and influential communities like the Jews are carefully avoided. Just the threat of anti-Semitism leads them back to the top of the tree waiting for the next victim; the issue of ‘free’ speech is forgotten.

Newspapers columnists like Charles Moore (author of the abovementioned article) ‘bravely’ criticizes behind the protected influential positions just like the Anglo-US forces are bombing from high altitude and torturing the kidnapped Iraqi civilians including women and children! These Newspaper columnists, for once could set a real example of their commitment to ‘free’ speech by giving the Muslims an equal voice so that the discourse is a fair one. Instead, they abuse their monopoly position by incessantly feeding the masses with anti-Islamic tirades and propaganda, reminiscent of the mindset of priests living in the dark ages!

B) Capitulation – Only the Islamic world has not ceded to the secular fanatics and their moderate allies under the guise of reformation or modernization. Islam by default is the final challenge for the holy-secular-warriors. The Christians for example have complied with the secular definitions of what religion should be for the sake of getting accepted. One can see their desperate measures, from endorsing homosexuality, capitulating to feminism, to the selling of Christianity by exploiting the poverty of others. If the Christians are willing to tolerate the constant abuse hurled at Jesus (PBUH) why should that be a yardstick for the Muslims or anyone?

C) Secular Hypocrisy – Ulterior motives results in the selective application of principles thereby exhibit hypocrisy. The US selectively invaded a weak Iraq under the pretext of a security threat but simultaneously avoided confrontation with the Nuclear North Korea. Likewise, the holy-secular-warriors are selectively attacking Islam even though their arguments could be much more applicable against other religions. For example the Talmud clearly endorses blatant RACISM as it upholds the fundamental concept of God’s chosen race. The status of the gentiles (non Jews) is like the animals literally as according to the Talmudic edict, gentiles have been created to serve the Jews, they are to be enslaved (Goyeem). Numerous other edicts from the Talmud make this very clear.

Like typical hypocrites the holy-secular-warriors fear to confront the Jews and they run like cowards, barley holding up their trousers. Do we not frequently witness their hypocritical politicians getting caught with their pants down after lecturing about ‘morality’ then attempt to do a similar exit?

D) Xenophobia - As most Muslims tend to be of non-White origin they are targeted openly under various pretexts but the underlying motivation is racism. This is self-evident when you observe the increasing number of the rightwing organizations have taken an anti-Islamic stance from the old position of being anti-foreigner. The shift may also reflect a change in the sentiments of the general native white population. Of course, the media is always doing its best to increase the xenophobia through writers like Charles Moore.

E) Secular Intolerance – Why resort to vulgar anti-Islamic diatribe instead of engaging in a civilized dialogue? Mr. Charles Moore [1] admits that ‘free’ speech has limits and it should not be used to incite violence. How those limits are decided and enforced is another matter but it inherently contradicts the very notion of being ‘free’. Such notions of freedom can also exist under absolute dictatorship! However, Charles Moore simultaneously argues that in a modern liberal society one should be able to “attack all beliefs”.

So where does one draw the line, as abusing the values of others would naturally lead to anger, potentially translating into violence. This is where secular hypocrisy and intolerance begins. They expect everyone to endure any amount of abuse of religious values but when it suits them they curtail criticism under the guise of ‘incitement to violence’ as it was done with Sheikh Abu-Hamza and Sheikh Faisal.

Secularism has no sacred values other than their material interests; therefore, they are happy to lower the level of discussion using abusive language to all areas and only restrict criticisms to their defined areas of interest. However, the primary reason for using abusive and vulgar language is due to intolerance towards Islam. This intolerance is natural since the secular hypocrites are unable to pose an intellectual challenge by providing an alternative coherent set of values and principles. They define themselves primarily by criticizing Islam. Despite their constant propaganda of the ‘backward’ and ‘evil’ Islam it continues to gain converts in the heart of their own territory. Paradoxically the level of conversion increased after 9/11. If Islam is so primitive and insignificant then how can it pose a threat and why so much resource is allocated to containing it?

What are the Secular ‘Ethics’?

The incoherent secular ‘ethics’ was demonstrated by Charles Moore’s own example as he casts a slur on the Prophet (SAW) by mentioning the old question - if the Prophet (SAW) was a Pedophile as he married the young Aisha. Words were deliberately selected to denigrate the Prophet (SAW) and injure the feelings of the Muslims. In the same way Prophet Ishmael was described as a Bastard child by the Xenophobic and Jewish controlled media to denigrate the Arabs, yet benign terms like ‘love child’ are used to describe the illegitimate children of their celebrities.

The definition of pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. Where as the marriage of the Prophet to his only virgin wife was conducted after puberty in line with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Furthermore, prepubescent sex with a child as young as 3 is sanctioned in Judaism not Islam; the Rabbis are permitted to have non-penetrative sex with them. So if the young age is really an issue why the hypocritical silence?

It seems peculiar for the likes of Charles Moore to suggest that it is immoral for two individuals with a considerable age difference to marry or engage in a relationship. Consider the following points. Why a marriage between heterosexual couples with disparity in age is more immoral than homosexual marriages that are licensed by the same liberal principles? It is the same liberal societies that are permitting all forms of sexual deviancies from bestiality, cannibalism to genuine pedophilia activity. In fact in the US there is an organization (NAMBLA) seeking to legitimize pedophile activity and the Danish government has refused to ban pedophile websites.

By the liberal criteria of freedom two consenting adults (meaning post puberty as defined by Islam) should be able engage freely in a marital relationship. Finally, if the secular west is really opposed to young people engaging in sex then why do they subject children to Porn-culture and casual sex? And teach them the tricks and provide them with the necessary tools to avoid the consequences of illicit sexual activities!

Non Muslims under Islamic Rule

Charles Moore also claimed that Dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State) are oppressed as they have to pay the Jizyah tax. But he ignorantly or conveniently does not mention that the Dhimmis are also excluded from many other taxes that are levied upon the Muslim citizens. Consequently, the Dhimmis as are either financially better off or in the same position as the Muslim citizens! The point of Islamic conquest (Jihad) is to gain converts not to engage in wanton killings and plundering like that is happening in Iraq and has happened for the last 400 years or so. Let’s remind Charles Moore that it was not the Muslims that took the crown jewels from different parts of the world back to Mecca or Medina! Oppressing the Dhimmis would defeat this central objective.

There are no historical records of where Dhimmis have revolted due to the oppressive Jizya in fact the non-Muslims enjoyed far greater levels of security and prosperity under Islam than they found in Europe amongst their co-religionists. The brutal Spanish inquisition and the conflict between the Latin and Orthodox Church in the Balkans are two a clear reminders.

Furthermore, minorities are the second class citizens in a secular state not the Dhimmis! How? The rights of the Dhimmis are protected by the clear Islamic texts and the laws are fixed and permanent. The same cannot be said of the minorities in secular societies as the Jews found out under the Nazis, Rodney King is a recent example and now the Muslims are beginning to find the same. Minorities have rights subjected to the democratic majority approval who are at liberty to change those rights.

The incarceration at camp-X-ray and the brutality of the US-run prisons in Iraq are a reminder for those who think we are talking in the realm of hypothetical possibilities. There is nothing to stop Europe or the US resurrecting the gas chambers if the majority approves. Secular West in fact has only recently learnt to exercise a bit of tolerance after centuries of intolerance.

Christians have lived under Muslim rule for centuries and their presence in the Islamic lands is proof of the vicious lies that are circulating in the Western media. If the Muslims were as intolerant as the Christian leadership the Christian communities would have been annihilated in places like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, suffering a similar fate of the Muslims in Spain. So, this is emanating from the mainstream press imagine the utter garbage in the tabloids. This shows that the West is still medieval when it comes to dealing with Islam and Muslims.

The Muslim Response

The Muslims being tolerant have not resorted to vulgar abusive language in the face of such vicious attacks. Despite the historic crimes that are being committed in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan they have not generated chauvinistic outbursts. However, the readers need to contemplate the following points to get a glimpse of how the Muslims would have responded to the constant denigration in the mass media if they had the mentality of the holy-secular-warriors.

The Muslims could have coined the term “a nation of Bastards” based on the statistics of huge number of children (30% to 50%) in the West born out of wedlock. Given the recent pictures from Abu-Ghraib and the carnage in Fallujah as corroborative evidences of that bastard nature! Or they could have also used the label “a nation of pimps” as the flesh trade is flourishing in the West. In fact, women can be purchased cheaper than cattle. The Muslims could have referred to the Pig like behavior using the old saying “what you eat is what you are” as it is the only animal that does not fight for its mate when another pig approaches it!

Looking at San Francisco, Jerry Springer, Abu-Ghraib and the Internet would it be constructive if the Muslims generalized by calling the West a nation of: homosexuals, necrophilia, serial killers and rapists. Or could the Muslims not look at the British history selectively and paint them as a ‘nation of pirates and thieves’; the process is being repeated now in Iraq. Or they could have reflected on the American history describing them as a ruthless greedy nation with an insatiable appetite for wealth and blood.

I am sure Mr. Moore and others would immediately burst into frenzy, newspaper headlines would be filled with venomous responses. But the more objective and enlightened individuals would recognize such name calling would not lead to a dialogue but a confrontation. The end result would be an increase in hatred and bigotry instead of mutual respect and understanding.

The Muslims to the contrary are happy to engage in an open civilized debate. They do not have a history of inquisitions or burning heretics at the crescent! There is no Islamic literature where volumes of information containing lies, vulgar profanities targeted against other faiths. Even the awful medieval crusades did not lead to such materials emerging in the Islamic world and that is true even to this day. Besides the mass media, if you search the Internet, there are many hateful anti-Islamic websites run by secular hypocrites and the foul mouth missionaries but one would be hard pressed to find any that is run by Muslims.

The likes of Charles Moore ought to realize that by vilifying Muslims it can end up in helping the cause of Islam by raising curiosity amongst the native population. During the time of the Prophet the pagan Arabs also engaged in a similar vilification campaign which only led to an increase in the number of followers as has happened due to the propaganda post 9/11. Islam has great resilience; it has stood many tests of time and continues to remain strong this day. History and the current reality proves that the West are only capable of containing Islam through the annihilation of Muslims e.g. Spain but never through intellectual dialogue!

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

Copyright © 2004 by Yamin Zakaria.

Published in 1/12/2004



  1. The "holy-secular warriors" are plenty hard on religions other than Islam. In fact in North American it is Christianity that bears the brunt of our criticism. If you can't see that you aren't paying attention.

    The reason religions and their prophets are attacked by secularists is because religion is silly nonsensical gibberish. Muslims believe Mohamed was a prophet and base their entire life on his words. Why? Because he said so? How does that make ANY sense? How do I get that kind of credibility? Since when do we just believe in things because the person with a vested interest in them say so. All I have to say is that I talked to God and I can shape the course of human history? Why is Mohameds claim more believable than cult leaders like David Koresh?

    Christians similarily believe in their religion on shaky premises. The Gospels were written centuries after the fact by Jesus's cult-like followers based on the handed down accounts of other followers. There are no credible extra-biblical texts attesting to Jesus's divinity (as opposed to his historicity).

    As long as people believe this ridiculousness and expect it to be the basis for our laws and social values secularists will rightly call it out. You and your prophet are as deserving of scorn and ridicule as any adult who believes in Santa Claus.

  2. Hi KC

    Thank you for your comments.

    I agree with you that in the US secularist are also attacking chiristianity but that is for the Christians to point out.

    If religion is silly and non-nonsensical then you have nothing to worry about, you need not spent time and effort to comment on it!

    Even the most die-hard opponent of religion actually lives by religious values in many spheres of their life. Take the example of marriage. Most secular warriors scorn the idea of marrying their sisters or mothers etc. Where does such values emanate from?

    Your comment on Prophet Muhammed shows you do not have even rudimentary knowledge on the subject. He was not accepted as a Prophet simply because of his words. I suggest you do further research on the subject, otherwise such opinions have little merit and deserved to be scorned!

  3. I agree with you that in the US secularist are also attacking chiristianity but that is for the Christians to point out.

    No. Your article quite clearly states that Islam is singled out amongst religion by secularists. It is not. My assessment is that Christianity bears the brunt of our criticisms as they are the dominant power force in the reigion.

    If religion is silly and non-nonsensical then you have nothing to worry about, you need not spent time and effort to comment on it!

    Of course I do, because day after day theocrats like yourself are trying to impose biblical/quaranic law on me. If I want to draw pictures of the prophet mohamed then that is my right. If I want to have relations with a man (which I don't but for the sake of discussion) then that is my right.

    Even the most die-hard opponent of religion actually lives by religious values in many spheres of their life. Take the example of marriage. Most secular warriors scorn the idea of marrying their sisters or mothers etc. Where does such values emanate from?

    Who says these are "values"? Perhaps they are simply biological aversions (not unlike our natural aversion to snakes). In any event simple genetics tells us that inbreeding is bad for the offspring.

    And just because we share some values, the problem is that religion seeks to impose things on us that are immoral or (more commonly) amoral--like prohibitions on homosexual sex and alcohol to name a few.

    Your comment on Prophet Muhammed shows you do not have even rudimentary knowledge on the subject. He was not accepted as a Prophet simply because of his words. I suggest you do further research on the subject, otherwise such opinions have little merit and deserved to be scorned!

    Not true at all. I've done a significant amount of study of the evidentiary basis for Christianity and Islam. I simply take the accounts of cult-like followers with a grain of salt.

    Most importantly, I know that Mohamed is not credited with any significant/non-explainable miracles (save perhaps for the splitting of the moon which is probably figurative); and that the only "evidence" that he communicated with God was that he said so. So really, Muslims only believe he is divine because he said so. If I'm wrong show me how.

    I know its hard for a religious person such as yourself to accept that your whole life has been a lie but the objective evidence for Mohamed's (and in fairness, Jesus's) divinity is scarce. My guess is that you are a Muslim because your parents were muslims and by the time you were old enough to think for yourself it was so ingrained in you that you never really questioned it on a scientific level. Alternatively you came to religion at a troubled part of your life when you needed to latch on to anything to have meaning because you were too weak to find your own meaning, and were willing to forego a reasoned analysis to do so. These two explanations seem to encapture 99.9% of the faithful. None of them are compatible with reason and the scientific method.

  4. Hi KC

    Once again thanks for your response.

    a) Yes the article does say Islam is attacked primarily but that does not exclude other religions. The reason for this is, unlike Christianity, Islam has not capitulated. There are other reasons too which is stated in the article.

    b) Your subsequent point about imposition is contradictory. If you are not imposing religious values then you are imposing something else. So imposition is of religion is unacceptable but of non-religious values. You talk about using your mind but such arguments shows that you are not!

    c) The point about values was to show you that secularist do not have effective alternative, their primary basis is just criticism of religion but yet they live many religious values.

    d) If you had done any basic research you would have known that Muhammed's (SAW) claim was based not on physical miracles (which cannot be verified by us now) but the miracle of the Quran. Hence please refer to my article on who is the author of the Quran?

    e) Finally, your analysis is more applicable to you from your answers and being here as you feel insecure about your own views. You need to think about this. I have scientific background like Issac Newton had a religious background! You cannot give me an alternative other than to scream your disapproval of religion, hence my views are more consistent with reason than yours.

    Please contemplate on the answers before you respond.



  5. a) Your statement doesnt make any sense. What do you mean capitulating? By capitulating do you mean that many Europeans started critically analyzing their religion, doubting its divinity, and rebelling against their theocratic leaders? If thats capitulation it sounds like a good idea to me. Under Islam such evolution could not occur because of... you guessed it... APOSTASY LAWS.

    b) It is not. Liberalism (root word liberty or freedom) allows you and I to live our lives without one another imposing on each other. You're as free to wear a burqa as I am to curse the prophet and drink alcohol as Joe Blow is to have relations with another man. No one imposes values. Anything else is "imposition" and surely I am as free to impose (by saying you cannot wear a burqa for instance) as you are. Remember that my whole debate with you started with me saying I have no interest in a burqa ban.

    c) No I don't have all the answers, but you don't either. As I have argued the Prophet Mohammed was just a man whose words had no divine significance and thus shouldn't be taken as guidance for a moral life. Thus secular ethics, while imperfect, are no more imperfect than the ramblings of a man who lived almost a millenia and a half ago.

    d) There is no "miracle of the Quran" except that Muslims say it is miraculous. There is no objective, real world evidence to suggest it is miraculous. Wheres the proof that it is somehow a miracle? I could write a bunch of stuff down and call it a miracle, but that does not make it so.

    e) I don't feel insecure about my views, in fact I actually have very few views. At least I don't insist that we all abide by the dictates of a man for whom there is zero evidence to suggest that he had any divine inspiration.

  6. Hi KC

    Thanks for your response

    a) No, I mean the Christians have started to accept all kinds of abuse, and alter their basic core values to avoid criticism.

    b) Again you are not seeing the argument. For example to state there should be no laws in society is in itself a law. Yes under secular values you can do those things, but why should that be the yard stick? For example I prefer if alcohol is banned, you know the earlier case where a man got drunk and killed two young boys and maimed his dad. That would not have happened if alcohol was not freely available.

    c) Wrong again, I do have answers which you are critical of without providing an alternative. It is very easy to criticise and call someone ugly behind a mask!

    By their fruits ye shall know them. You see billions still following "ramblings" of Prophet Muhammed and it continues to penetrate secular societies. Even critics like you are spending time to refute his message. If he did not have any substance surely people would stop following that.

    d) The Quran is a miracle and if you had done any basic research you would have known why. Hence, I asked who is the author of the Quran? You should read the article to which I have referred you/

    e) I gave you the evidence for divine inspiration - the Quran. Who is the author of the Quran? Whose words are those? Again you need to do some basic reading on the subject. There are many additional proofs but I want to see if you are sincere enough to investigate your own points first.



  7. a) Thank god... pardon the pun. Its a sign of progress that we are no longer killing witches and ruled by church leaders if you ask me.

    b) Me drinking booze in my house in no way "imposes" on you, just as a Muslim woman wearing a hijab in no way imposes on me. On the other hand if you tell me I can't drink and I tell a muslim woman she cannot wear a hijab we are imposing. There are ways we can live amongst each other without imposing.

    I hope you realize the standard you are setting. By your logic there is no reason our government could not ban hijabs, mosques and prayer if doing so conforms with the "values" of our society. The best bet for you and I is freedom.

    Pretty simple.

    c) I don't need to provide an alternative. Maybe some of the values in the Quran make sense (i.e. no killing, etc.) but others dont (i.e. no alcohol or gay sex). The fact is though that unless the Quran really is gods word (which there is no evidence for) the basis for all of the "values" contained therein falls down. Its as morally vacant as a purely secular belief system. The "values" cannot be justified unless we believe that it is the word of God--which the evidence simply doesn't support.

    Furthermore, the number of people who believe in the thing doesn't prove a thing. There are still more Christians in the world than Muslims. Does that mean Christianity has the answers? No. Throughout history humans have believed in various gods, etc. from the paleolithic man to the ancient romans.

    Finally, Islam may be "spreading" in the west, but that has more to do with migration than anything else (why wouldn't someone, if given the choice, move to a richer country). I also think more muslims doubt there religion but are too afraid of apostasy laws than the numbers suggest. There is also a substantial backlash against Islam in the west and after hearing what your values are I sympathize with that view point. We like our freedom and intend to defend it.

    d) The cowards escape--"do some research". The Quran isn't a miracle because you said so. Where is the evidence? Because Mohammed says so? Thats not evidence. I'm a lawyer. I know that just because people say things does not make them true.

    e) No you simply havent. There is NO evidence. None that stands up to scrutiny.

    In any event, "extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof". The burden is on you to prove its divinity, not the other way around. I've certainly never seen anything that convinces me.

  8. Hi KC

    You say you are a lawyer but I would not have thought that from your answers and your inability to remain calm at times. In fact people in the past have 'accused' me of being a lawyer. lol

    a) I was not referring to middle ages but in recent times.

    b)If you are lawyer you should understand about the need to IMPOSE laws on society, hence there is no such thing as FREEDOM. The personal freedom is also valid under Islam. Freedom is valid in any society, even in a harsh dictatorship as long as you keep to the laws. Within the Islamic State you can drink in your home, confined to your quarters. Non-Muslims gave greater rights and freedom then Muslims do under Liberal society. I know this will unsettle you a bit.

    But the differences arises in the public sphere, which is determined by the values that determine the collective good for society. Hence whilst you may drink Alcohol in your home but if you venture out you may get punished, as you may cause harm - thousands die by drink and drive.

    c) If you cant provide an alternative then your criticism is baseless. Its like me saying I don't like the colour of your shirt. OK but what do you like instead? Blank!See after talking about using your mind and being scientific you sound the exact opposite like most secularists!

    My reference to number is not the ultimate criteria for truth but it is also to make the point that you cant be dismissive of it. There may be slightly more Christians numerically but the there are more practising Muslims.

    Islam expanding in the west was reference to converts not migration. If you are a lawyer you should be able to read between the lines!

    d and e) Its cowards escape (and a stubborn one) - to make a statement without validating it. You are claiming that Quran is not a miracle but you don't know the arguments. You imply it is the work of a man. Who? Who wrote the Quran? Meaning whose words are they? That is an evidence. The Quran exists but nobody can say who the author is! So i am not asking you to accept it as divine because Muhammed (saw) or me said so, I am giving you the evidence. But it seems you are the one bent on - cowards escape



  9. b) Actually being a lawyer has shown me that laws should be kept to a minimum and only be used to prevent real "harm" to other people. People are best off when they are given control over their own lives. Yes we need laws to protect people from harm.

    Your definition of "freedom" is very narrow. As long as religious values are being imposed on people they are not "free". I think any objective analysis of most majority Muslim countries quite clearly indicates they are not remotely free. Your comment that they are more free than Liberal societies is just so ridiculous I don't know where to start. The only thing that comes close to unfreedom in the west is our drug laws (which I oppose). Depending on the Islamic country you can't leave your house without a headscarf, drink alcohol, fraternize with the opposite sex, engage in homosexual relations, etc. There is simply no comparison in terms of freedom.

    By the way... just because you leave the house and drink alcohol does not mean you will drive. 90%+ of the drinkers in the west use designated drivers and mind their own business.

    c) Why should I need to provide alternatives? Maybe there IS NO ultimate source of ethics and values in the world. Did you ever think of that? For what its worth I have humanistic values and try to do unto others as I would have done for me; respect for life and personal autonomy; love of family; etc. Thankfully these values were not imposed on me.

    The fact that I can't provide a definitive answer on what is right and wrong though does not help your case one bit. If you tell me that the reason the sky is blue is because god paints it, the fact that I cannot tell you the real reason why the sky is blue (I could.. I'm being hypothetical) doesn't validate your argument. Some things may simply be unknowable, or we may not have the faculties at the present time to know them.

    I doubt there are as many practicing muslims as you might think. Since Islam is not a religion of freedom we don't really know the level of dedication to the religion since apostates are killed or otherwise punished. Thus they won't be honest about their lack of belief. I suspect that they are somewhat like westerners and span a spectrum from true hardcore believers (like yourselves) to casual followers to skeptics. The difference though is that they are forced to outwardly project hardcore belief.

    There may be some converts in the west but they are not that numerous. Migration is by far the larger source of growth. Either way new converts doesnt say much. There are also scientologists, believers in the flying spaghetti monster, cultists, etc. People get sucked into ridiculous belief systems. I don't understand it but it seems to be part of the human condition to believe in childs stories.

    d) and e) Like I said, the burden of proof is not on me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

    Who wrote the Quran? Some human. Just like the bible. Just like every other religious text ever written. Did god write it? I guess its possible. But is that the most logical explanation? Not by a country mile.

    It is probably like the other hundred billion books that have been written by human over the years (including others whose authorship is unknown). Concluding that its the word of god because we don't know who wrote it is a pretty big stretch.

    It never ceases to amaze me how religious people suspend their critical thinking skills when it comes to the authorship of religious texts. Tell a man a scientific hypothesis and he demands double blind studies and peer review. Tell a man a book is the word of god and his brain stops working.

    I'm still waiting for SOME Muslim to show me the evidence that the Quran is divine. At least Christians try to point to extra-biblical texts attesting to Christs divinity. Islam's got nothing.

  10. Hi KC

    Thank you for your response.

    You clearly have a lot to learn.

    b) The issue of freedom is not my definition this is the reality of it. You put down boundaries very arbitrarily and you call it freedom. You don't like someone else's boundary you say its restrictive. Your argument has no real merit here. Why is your boundaries any better? These boundaries are the cruck's of the debate but you just want me accept your definition at face value then you have the gall to talk of using your mind! Really?

    Muslim countries are secular countries - Islamic State is no longer in existence. Islamic laws provide much greater freedom and protection to non-Muslims than do secular laws. But that is another debate.

    c) If you cant provide an alternative then what is the merit of your criticism? It means you are some one who likes to shout a lot in anger!

    When man start to define morality and ethics you get serial killers at different levels from Hitler to Dammer - many inspired by secular 'prophets' like NIztche!

    d) Your answer on the Quran shows your eating your words - cowards escape. Some human wrote it. Yeah some human wrote it but the Arabs at the time could not recognise him or her. Maybe because he or she was invisible came from planet Zorb, on some space ship, landed, spoke Arabic, gave it secretly to Muhammed which caused upheaval in the entire Arabian society - that led to 1500 years of expansion. If you can believe such things I think it is more rational to believe in Santa Clause!

    If you seriously want to debate an issue the least you can do is take a Scholarly approach. You look at the academic views on Quran from both sides, Muslims and non-Muslims.

    Who was alleged to have written this book? Muslims and Non-Muslims agree it is not Muhammed nor was it any of the Arabs. Well why would they remain invisible?

    How can I show you when are choosing to remain deaf dumb and blind? I asked you a question, you gave a lazy answer based on your HUNCH!

    Once again Quran is the Miracle, its author (if you investigate the sources)is not Muhammed, it is not any of the Arabs, nobody claimed at that time or subsequently to be the Author of the Quran. Nobody ever said Quran was Muhammad's words. Why not?

  11. b) Freedom is not just some malleable word. It has meaning. There are "reasonable" limits on freedom when it harms others that we can observe and measure in the real world. There are unreasonable limits on freedoms that are plucked out of baseless religious texts.

    There are plenty of countries that apply Islamic law to various degrees (Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia). They do not do so perfectly--just as there are no perfectly secular or Christian countries in the world.

    Your assertion that non-Muslims have more freedom in Islamic states is simply ridiculous. I JUST listed a variety of things that a non-Muslim could not do in an Islamic state that he could do in a free western country--ie alcohol, sex outside marriage, homosexual relations, bashing and mocking religion, etc. etc.

    c) Like I argued before, the fact that I have no alternative does not justify your alternative. Thats not logical. The fact that I can't explain something doesn't make your explanation valid when your explanation is full of holes.

    WHY do I attack your silly beliefs you ask then? Because to the extent they are politicized they represent a threat to my freedom as I just argued.

    As for man defining morals... Man HAS defined morals. The morals in the bible and quran were decided by man, written down by man, and interpreted by man. They are as manmade as any other sort of values. At least that is all I have seen any evidence on.

    Like I've been arguing: for religious morality to mean a THING there must be evidence that it truely comes from god. There is not. Thus all of what it says is arbitrary. That doesn't mean "man" didn't get some things right when he wrote the bible and the quran; but it does mean that that morality is not settled.

    As for Hitler and Dahlmer; lets talk about all the attrocities that have been carried out in the name of religion: burning witches; killing apostates, blasphemors and homosexuals; the crusades; stoning rape victims. All in the name of "gods" laws.

    e) You haven't shown me a thing. You've said that the Quran was written by man but we don't know who so therefore its a "miracle"? How does that make an ounce of sense. Did you ever think that maybe we just don't KNOW who wrote it? No, you didnt, because you're a religious person and you suspend disbelief when it comes to your religion.

    That is the problem with religious people. They can't tolerate not knowing something. When there is something they don't know they just pull something out of mid-air and accept it as truth no matter how ridiculous it might sound at an objective level.

    True enlightenment means accepting that sometimes we don't and can't know the answer to something.

  12. Hi Kc

    b) That is the question. You object to freedom being defined from religious text but you are happy to impose YOUR definition of freedom! Isn't that a baseless hypocritical argument? I thought as a lawyer you would see the folly of making such claims. Those limits are what gives freedom its identity, and you cant expect me to take your definitions at face value. Sorry, but I am not as gullible as you are.

    What is reasonable and unreasonable is a matter of opinion.

    For example in the West one can engage in a homosexual relationship but he is not free to have polygamous relationship. In the Islamic world it is the reverse. So which one is more free? You claim former, why because you say so! really?

    c) You talk about atrocities committed in the name of religion yet ignore that far greater number of atrocities committed in the name of secular values. Once again you are not even acknowledging basic facts.

    d) You still don't understand my point about the Quran. Here are some facts -

    1) Quran is in Arabic. I mean do you expect a foreigner to write Shakespeare or Chaucer? According to your 'logic' so far, yes probably, hmm yeah could be! According to common-sense NO!

    2) Quran was revealed in Arabic to Prophet Muhammed who was known to be a shepard not one of the poets, with no history - suddenly comes up with this recitation. How?

    3) The Arabs at the time do not want to acknowledge it is divine (as they have setup their own gods with commercial interests at stake) nor are they able to attribute to Muhammed (saw) or to anyone else. So they say its some mystical source which is non-sense. A bit like your speculation!.

    4) We do know who wrote the Quran in terms of the words and when. We have the original copy and preserved by memory (hifz) compiled over 23 years. But who is the source of those words? How is it that this Shepard can suddenly come out with this?

    What does your 'enlightened' mind' tell you here? How is it a book revealed over 23 years transforms a society and nobody claims it is the works of a human being?

    5) The Quran itself challenges "if you do not believe that this is from Allah, then produce 10 chapters like it" - What happened then? The Arabs tried it, even the enemies knew if they could put a challenge they would win. So what happened?

    The Quran claims it is from Divine source, no human being at the time or afterwards claimed to have written it. Therefore, you need to contemplate on this and not just say yeah I think some green man came and wrote it down.

  13. b) I swear we live in completely different worlds. The world I live in things are observable, measurable, and you can reason from point A to point B. It is not a purely subjective world. What causes "harm" to others can be determined objectively. It is not just a matter of opinion.

    As for polygamy, well I happen to disagree with our polygamy laws but in any event you are slightly mischarectarizing them. In the Islamic world you can't even have homosexual relations. In the west (in my country at least) you can HAVE a polygamous relationship or polygamous relations; you just can't get married.

    Show me how else the west is less free. You can't.

    And you never responded to my query last night: If societies are so free to "impose" their values on others is it ok for western countries citing their values to shut down mosques, and ban hijabs and Muslim prayer?

    c) Show me where secular people have gone around killing people in the name of secularism or with secularism as its justification. You'd be hard pressed. Certainly secular people do bad things as religious people do good things but secularism is very rarely the inspiration for murderous regimes (Stalinist Russia may be an exception).

    d) I've heard all of these claims before and none of them are very compelling. If someone wanted others to believe something was the word of god why WOULD they take responsibility for writing it? You don't think its possible that Mohammed learned more through his life than you are giving him credit for (I know some people with dead end jobs who if you scratch the surface are pretty smart)?

    Yeesh maybe you SHOULD become a lawyer to learn what people are really like. People lie. They don't properly remember things. Often you have 5 witnesses, none of whom have reason to lie, who have completely different versions of events. Memory is fallible and sometimes the truth is never revealed. If you tried to go to court with the evidence you have for the Quran you would be laughed at.

    Like I said, I don't reject the notion that there were some strange and mysterious circumstances surrounding the writing of the Quran. But to take what you said, and what we know about the world we live in and conclude that this is Gods work? What a joke. There are far more logical and reasonable explnations than you suggest. Its just like when someone says they saw a UFO. Maybe they saw something, but it probably wasn't a UFO.

    I think that if you hadn't been spoon fed this crap since you were a young child you would see how ridiculous it sounds from a purely objective, evidentiary and logical perspective. If I told you that there was a giant dragon in a cave in my neighbourhood would you believe me because my hair is burnt and my eyes are red? No you wouldn't.

    By what you're telling me is that all I have to do is write a book, say in the book that its the word of god, deny having written it and then 1500 years later I can have 1.5 billion followers? What a deal. Maybe I should do it.

    For what its worth I think the rest of the religions of the world rest on equally weak evidence as Islam. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic.

  14. KC

    b) As it progresses you are making less sense. If you aspire to be free in the sense you are talking about, then you are calling for a law less society! But in the west the laws are increasing daily putting more and more restrictions. I think you are aspiring to live in a jungle maybe, no laws absolute freedom.

    Laws are not legislated by measuring harm or benefit. What is benefit to someone maybe harmful to others. It is subjective.

    We can take many example of freedom. In the west certain places are not safe as young people know they can get away with crimes. Where as in Muslim societies like Saudi or UAE you can roam the streets all night. You see families out at night, late walking and enjoying. So its more free for some but not for others.

    c) Hitler/Nazis was secular state, Polpot was the leader of a secular state. The US/West is a secular state. Two great wars were secular wars etc. They have all committed genocide. People do not kill in the name of secularism but it is consequence of secular values by making man sovereign.

    d)Once again you are saying there is a plausible explanation for the Quran but you don't know it, or some other factor. Your assertion that the Prophet (saw) was able to lean and express himself that way shows you are not using your mind.

    In life we progress gradually and we need a tutor to teach us. Muhammed (saw) had neither, how can he suddenly produce a book like that? How could he have known about embryology for example? On top able to express that with such eloquence. Can you imagine a person writing something that newspaper editor or a counsel might produce in a court of law with no formal education? You see, you do not want see the evidence which is in front of your eyes?

    If you write a book it will be self-evident that it is from you. You would struggle to get one or two followers let alone billion.

  15. Mr. Kc has failed to support his claims against the prophet (saw) and Quran, he want people to believe his fallacious and illogical views with out giving any proof. In fact Mr. Kc and his ilk’s are suffering from sever intellectual recession and are coming again and again with the same outdate and self contradictory.


  16. on one there is great man like yamin zakaria and other there is bogeyman of zionazis farid much differnce