1) ISLAMIC PUNISHMENTS & ABSURD JUSTIFICATIONS
2) MUHAMMAD PRAISEWORTHY OR CONDEMNABLE?
1) ISLAMIC PUNISHMENTS & ABSURD JUSTIFICATIONS
Many muslims scholars are nowadays aware of criticisms of islamic ideology, politics, economics, society, culture and practices through out the world because of acceptance of human rights charter which stop one person or state from abusing another person or state’s human rights yet they continue to justify islamic way of life including terrorism and barbaric punishments. Islam is anti coexistence and is all about terrorising people into submission and its prescribed punishments are a part of it. Islam uses terror anywhere and everywhere where it has no arguments to prove its case. This begins with the point that if you ask for a clearcut proof for islam being the only true religion from god, the answer would be a threat of death and destruction or actual death and destruction if possible instead of a reasonably sound argument. You are not allowed to question the islamic truth instead you must accept it. If this is not coercion and terror, what is? You are born in a muslim family by no fault of your own but if you disown islamic faith, you are threatened with death and destruction. If this is not terror, what is? Likewise if you are a muslim then you must accept every punishment you are given by islamic authorities with open heart ie admitting that you deserve it. As there is no sensible logic in faith in islam nor is there any in islamic punishments.
Muslims are unable to prove existence of god or even existence of any sensible way of proving existence of god. They say the quran is the proof that there is a god by name of Allah who revealed his message to Muhammad. The question remains what is the proof that the quran is world of god? Is there a clearcut way to prove that the quran is the word of god? Either muslims have no answer or they say that the quran proves to be the book which contains such information that it could not have come from other than god. However when we examine the quran for this purpose we do not find any such information in the quran which could have come from god. The quran contains contradictions within itself and contradicts the real world as well as it is fatally flawed in its purpose. These contradictions are not only within individual statements but the whole principles and objectives are contradictory and are contradicted. For example, the quran says, Allah is surrounding everything as well as Allah is everywhere. Does it make sense? Either you surrounds things so you are absent from the spaces where things are or you are everywhere then things cannot be there.
The Quran says there is no limit to his power or knowledge ie Allah knows everything and Allah can do everything. Does this make any sense? If god knows everything he cannot do everything and if god can do everything then he cannot know everything. So existence of any such being is impossible who is unlimited in knowledge and power, for knowledge by its very nature is unlimited ie does Allah know all the numbers if so, what is the greatest number? What is the smallest fraction? What is the largest prime number? The numbers keep going on and on and no one can count them all including Allah. This means Allah’s claim of knowing everything is nonsense and because the quran contains such statements therefore the quran is nonsense. If Allah can do everything due to unlimited power then why can he not count the highest number? It clearly shows that existence of any such being is impossible who could have such power. Likewise the claim that Allah knows the future is not true either because the knowledge of future clashes with ability of being able to make alternative choices or take alternative actions. When it comes to philosophical arguments the theory of existence of a divine being falls apart. Now if there is no possibility of existence of any such divine being as is alleged in alleged divine scriptures then there remains no question of any god revealing any scripture to anyone.
This being the case islam is nothing more than creation of ancient Arabs tribal chiefs themselves to make fool of less fortunate people in order to abuse them. As all people who are a bit well informed about history of various civilizations know full well that people of old were not as civilized as people of today, so it makes sense where the concept of islamic ideas, systems and practices comes from. The ancient civilizations were always mostly based on concept of terror rather than reason and so were there legal codes of practice because they were not yet so logical in solving their problems. So muslims would be very stupid indeed to continue doing so. They say that their laws are for a fully developed welfare islamic state. I do not see the need for such laws in societies where there is less or no crime because people see no reason for committing crimes in that case unless they are mentally ill and in that case they need help not punishment even if it means freeing them from their misery by putting them to sleep. You need to remove from the society the reasons for crimes not the criminals, they need to be reformed if we have the ability and the needed resources. Deterrents are needed but they need to be of a different nature that work for keeping society on track not that destroy people. If reasons for committing crimes are there then punishment no matter how harsh will not solve the problem, the causes of crime must be tackled as the first step.
The quran is imperfect because it claims to be a perfect divine guidance for all till the end of time yet it fails to provide any clearcut guidance. For example, if you have to travel from one place to another and you do not know the way what do you do? You look for someone who knows the place. If you find him you request him for directions. Now if he gives you clearcut and sufficient directions and you follow those directions faithfully, there is no chance that you could get lost on your way to the place where you are going. On the other hand if the person who knows the place does not give you clearcut or sufficient directions then you would be confused to begin with so how do you expect to reach your destination? Such is the guidance the religious scriptures provide. It is not sufficient for directing people, so it is fatally flawed in its objectivity. No matter how many times you read the quran it makes no sense whatsoever. You must know Arabic we are told, but how about Arab religious scholars who are divided into many sects since the beginning of islam? No clearcut answers but excuses and more excuses that is all you get from muslims and their scholars.
When it is the quran that claims to be the perfect guide then guidance must only and only come from the quran, but does it? No, the quran throws responsibility onto hadith. The hadith throws responsibility onto fiqh and fiqh throws it onto, qayas, ijmah, ijtehad, imaams, mufties, mullas and maulanas etc etc. In other words there is no end to the sources needed for guidance in islam or for any other religion for that matter. Remember, the saying that too many cooks spoil the broth. So one should ask how perfect guide the quran is? You cannot even pray five times a day without any help from other sources than the quran. This speaks for itself about perfection of the quran. Again we are told that had god put everything in the quran it would have become a huge book. But if he did not in order to keep it simple and easy for people then who the hell are you to make such additions to the religion which make it so difficult for people? The quran challenges that people cannot bring anything like the quran even a single chapter made of three verses. Most people have ignored the challenge but some have produced better writings than the quran. This challenge actually contradicts the quran itself in principle. The point is that anyone who challenges anyone must himself clarify the challenge, if one does not then the challenge itself is wrong.
Does the quran clarify what is special about the quran wherefore others cannot produce anything like it even in a small quantity or amount? The answer is, it does not. This is why some people who wanted to answer the challenge were unable to do so to the satisfaction of the muslims. On the other hand if anyone tries muslim threaten him with death threats for insulting the quran, rather than letting people see the answer to the challenge. So in my opinion it is a dishonest challenge to say the least. The quran does not clarify the challenge because it knew then people will come up with better than the quran. Since the challenge is not made clear if one tries to come up with something like or better than the quran then muslims can say it is not like the quran. This is how simple minded people have been conned to believe in the quran ie by tricks. The clever people knew that quran cannot be word of god if it challenges yet fails to clarify the challenge for challengers and judges. So learn muslims tactics and beat them at their own game. Islam definitely has no future unless it accepts separation of mosque and state, for muslims must learn to live with people of other systems of beliefs including atheists and apostates otherwise fair minded and civilised people will do all they can to expose the myth called peace loving islam and muslims. It only means peace on islamic and muslim terms rather than on humanitarian principles. Islamic peace based on quranic terms is not acceptable to anyone. The sooner the muslims are made to realise this fact the sooner we all can live in peace.
There is no compulsion in religion, says the quran 2/256. What it means is that nonmuslims are not forced to accept religion of islam, the muslims say. However, the quran also says that unless nonmuslims turn muslims they should be killed and that was the option given to Makkan polytheists by Muhammad when he entered Makkah with his army. Just think how many of us even in this day and age are able to convince people to change their minds over night about their long held beliefs. This should clarify any doubts that Muhammad and his followers used terror to force people to change their religions. I suggest that one studies the quran, the hadith, the fiqh, the biographies of Muhammad and the islamic history The quran also says if any turns away from islam after accepting it then he shall be punished in here as well as hereafter. This is then clarified in the hadith that any who turns non-muslim after embracing islam should be punished by death. There is no any prescribed punishment in the quran in this matter, however, there are verses in the quran which tell us that any who turns muslim then becomes nonmuslims and then again accepts islam and then again rejects it shall not be forgiven nor guided 4/137, 3/86, 91. This is only possible if one is allowed to live after rejecting islam so that one could think about it again at some future stage before death. In 47/25-27 etc we are again told that apostate should be left to die a natural death rather than being killed for apostasy. These statements matter in the sense of clearcut contradictions within the quran and between the quran and the hadith. Eventhough the quran does not prescribe any punishment for leaving islam, Muhammad’s practice was always of killing people who turned away from their islamic faith, which was followed by muslims throughout times and places.
The problem is that people are born ignorant and they are to struggle for survival in this life. They learn things and make up their minds as they go along because the learning process is a life long struggle. By very nature of our existence we ought to be allowed to change our minds about things as many times as we need because each and everyday in our lives brings new knowledge to us and therefore what we may think is right today we may not think it right tomorrow. The fact that the highly educated people among us change their theories because of the new discoveries is an undeniable fact. So a religion which does not allow people to change their mind about it is not worth the paper it is written on and cannot be divine in its origin, for it contradicts the very nature of our world the way it exists and functions. It proves that the origin of this alleged divine religion is not the same as ours or the origin of the universe in which we live.
Under present situation it is not possible for muslims to create an islamic state wherein one kind of muslims could be allowed to kill other kind of muslims or those muslims who turn their backs on islam altogether. This is because the world has moved on from the time of Muhammad. Freethinking is the new world order, for mixture of people through out the world states so necessitates. As muslims demand their rights in nonmuslim states so nonmuslims demand their rights in muslim states. Those who turn their backs on islam become nonmuslims and therefore they should be treated as such. By leaving one group of people an individual becomes a member of another group of people even according to islamic ideology. The united nations human rights declaration is quite clear in this regard and people who are disadvantaged by any state should join together to take action against such states as abuse individuals’ basic human rights. Muslims can be called deceivers, because they invite people to their religion without making it clear to them what they are going in for. Moreover only such people should have been treated as muslims as accept islam consciously, being fully aware of the consequences of changing their minds later on and leaving it, not those who are born to muslim parents and have no idea what islam really is.
Muslims try to justify their stupid stance on law of apostasy by saying it is same as treason. It cannot be treason because one is not betraying one’s country by trying to undermine its defense or security aspect. If treason simply means that if you become a nonmuslim then you are going to betray your country and therefore you should be eliminated then how about nonmuslims minorities in an islamic state? For example, atheists, christians, jews, parsees, hindus, sikhs etc etc. In that case how should nonmuslim states treat muslims? An apostate is not any more threat to an islamic state than any other nonmuslim. The only people who could be a threat to any state security are those who are directly involved in the state defense or security matters not ordinary people in the street. In that case religion has no part in this, for that is not how countries are or can be run nowadays. If muslim states will not give equal rights to nonmuslims in employment etc etc then why should the nonmuslim state give equal rights to their muslim citizens? Are they at any lesser risk of treason from muslims than muslim states from nonmuslims?
Muslims claim that god created people to test them to see who obeys god and who does not 11/7, 18/7, 21/35, 64/2, 67/2. This idea gives rise to a number of tough contrary arguments. For example: There is no any clearcut proof from any alleged divine being, so if muslims claim to have any such proof about existence of any divine being they should make it evident. There is no any clearcut way for proving existence of any alleged divine being, so if muslims claim to have any such clearcut and distinct way of proving the existence of any alleged divine being they should make it obvious. One needs to realise that if one wants to do anything then it can only and only be done if there is a way to do it, if there is no way for doing something then it cannot be done. So if there is no way for proving something it cannot be proven. Even if we accept muslim claim the question is, how many people are on trial, because the course work and exam papers are not available to majority of people in the world. They are not known to majority of people, not understood by majority of people. They do not make sense even to those who claim them to be sensible, so what kind of test or trial is this? You cannot be sensible if you are testing people or putting them on trial without providing them the necessary means to go with it. You cannot leave everything to candidates ie to find the lessons themselves, to study and make sense of them themselves, and to act on them themselves under circumstances of life in this world the way it is ie it is a very hard struggle for survival in which there is no room for anything else. It makes no sense why muslims are wasting all their resources on trying to explain the unexplainable when there are so many worthwhile causes all around the world for helping humanity.
It makes no sense why god should send his message to a minority of people instead of the majority of people. In a language yet undeveloped, to a man of no status ideologically, politically, economically, socially, culturally, financially or educationally according to muslims. The way god allegedly chose to make his message known to people is full of defects yet we are expected to believe it is perfect. Would god be stupid enough to go about doing things in a way they cannot be done or make no sense? The quran says that if it was not from god it would be full of contradictions 4/82. It means the things which people are asked to believe must be sensible and therefore believable. Now if one says that defective or undeveloped language can preserve or convey a perfect message then that is not right, is it? God also had to use ways and means to convey his message that could help people believing in it not the opposite. The quran also tells people to ponder or think and realise. What is the point of all this if god does things in a way that makes no sense anyway whatsoever or makes people draw the opposite conclusions to what god meant for people? Such like arguments clearly put alleged divine messages on trial before they could put people on trial. So as the quran itself says, bring your proof if what you claim is true. Before condemning others muslims have a duty to explain themselves and their scriptures to the wider nonmuslim and apostate world or they should be held responsible for death and destruction they have caused so far through out the times and places because of their defective and deceptive beliefs and actions. One must remember that islam is tribalism in an organised form that was brought about by destitute Arabs to better their chances but ended up back to square one, once they became established as explained elsewhere.
2) MUHAMMAD PRAISEWORTHY OR CONDEMNABLE?
We have been told constantly by his followers that Muhammad was a perfect human being in every sense but the quran, the hadith, the fiqh, the biographies of Muhammad and the islamic history do not agree nor do the scholars who have done some research on him. To find out what Muhammad was really like one has to go behind the veil of alleged perfection. We are told the story of Muhammad in a way that it seems it is made out of many different versions, for none can put all the contradicting facts together in a straight forward way. If we put some facts together and leave others out, we get various muslims brands of the story eg shia version is different from sunni version. Moreover there are sects within sects so again we will have to take some facts according to one version and leave the others out. Likewise there are different versions of stories according to muslims, ex-muslims and nonmuslims. If one version turns Muhammad into a god the turns him into a devil. accordingly we are told that before Muhammad claimed prophetship everyone was living in harmony which was destroyed by him. There were no wars between Arabs or between Arabs and their neighbours. His own family was united and looked after him well, for he was an orphan. His father died before his birth and his mother died a few years later. He was looked after by his paternal grandfather and after him by his paternal uncle. He caused disputes, hatred and divisions within families and destroyed the peace that existed between people at the time. So his reputation as a peace maker or peace keeper does not stand. When it comes to sexual character of the prophet, one will see that he had more wives than his followers plus he had concubines or maids. The interesting thing is that he claimed it was his privilege from god. One of his wives was also wife of his adopted son who divorced her, she was Muhammad’s paternal aunt’s daughter. He married the daughter of his friend Abubakar at the age of fifty three. Abubakar was a bit younger than he himself and that his daughter was only six year of age. He did not allow his wives to marry anyone after him and again he claimed privilege from god. His image as a person of sexual integrity is also non-existent. Please do not get me wrong I am not against Muhammad having so many sexual partners but the way had them according to the tribal customs and the way muslims treat sexual purity and morality ie with utmost importance.
We are told that everyone is equal before god but was Muhammad or his family equal to everyone else? He claimed to be better than everyone else and he asked his followers to respect his family and tribe because of him. He was to be obeyed unconditionally. He never treated non-muslims as equal human beings rather he treated them as if they were not human beings just because they refused to accept his message. We are told that a muslim should live in this world as a passer-by yet prophet gathered power for himself, wealth, slaves and maids. What kind of example is that for a man who claims to be a prophet from god? Such a man should have lived a life that was fit for the claim not the opposite. He should have told people to be democratic and equal citizens rather than being tribal and authoritarian. He should have told men to treat women as equals. He should not have gathered women and should not have married a child. He should not have claimed that he or his family is above everyone else like other rulers. He was supposed to fight for winning the hearts and minds of people through knowledge, compassion, progress, peace and prosperity not ignorance, hatred, retardation, fear and destruction. There were many scholars before him but he destroyed them and their works. Whereever muslims went as conquerors they destroyed whatever other people built lest muslims think of their superiority because of their scholarly and skilful works. Indians, Egyptians, Romans and Greeks were famous for all kinds of great works of language, science, philosophy, art, fiction and mythology etc etc, for example.
There is ample evidence in the quran, hadith and islamic history to suggest that this man was a ruthless dictator in the guise of theocracy. He was enemy of free thought, freedom and democracy. He was an Arab nationalist, for he came from Arabia and fought for Arabian imperialism. The quran only mentions prophets from children of Abraham in detail despite the claim that prophets were sent to all people of all places and times. If we look at history most rulers in the world used religion as basis for their power struggles. For example, Romans used christianity for uniting their people and controlling them through priests. Pharaohs did the same long before them. Each time people separated they separated on the basis of having a different religion. Moses separated his people from Egyptians by saying his religion is different from them. In other words rulers and priests always used differences in religions to separate people from each other and likewise they used commonality of religion to unite people and then they expanded their influence through whatever means they thought necessary including wars. Similarly Muhammad also used religion to begin his mission of ruling Arabia through appealing to children of Ishmael or Isaac and then to wider Arabs and he succeeded though only for a short time. He behaved like a ruthless king not a prophet when he got power in his hands.