Ex-Muslim in Muslim country discusses Islamic supremacism

... good deeds of his will go in vain, because no matter what he does, he would eventually burn in hellfire for eternity unless he realizes the truth before he dies and says the shahada".

This is why the jihadis hate education of any kind outside of Islam. Heaven forbid, the common Muslim man might think for himself. That would utterly destroy Islam, just like it would any true cult.

Know Islam, Know Violence
No Islam, No Violence

l would think one of these days you would tell your relative off.. l dont know how you can hold it back.. l think there are probably many Muslims like you who really hate islam.. and too afraid to speak up.. it is sad when you cannot speak your mind.. l cannot judge you.. but l pray one day you might have a chance to speak freely.

Hey, I feel the same with my leftist friends and family. So irrational thinking is all over the place. What we need is to teach us and the new generation methods of critical thinking. Which is much easier said than done.

When you are trapped inside a religious meme it is difficult to see it objectively. Once you can see the meme from the outside the delusion of the religious meme dissolves instantly.

"In other words, a Muslim has a confirmed one way ticket to heaven, whereas a Non-Muslim is doomed to be in hell for eternity." --Liberated

Yes, that's a major problem in Islam. I suspect that there are lots of Muslims who question the idea of this punishment for mere disbelief, but are afraid to express their views. Polls I've seen, though, do indicate that most Muslims believe their religion is the only way to heaven/paradise and that all the others lead to hell.

By contrast, nowadays, most Christians believe that people of other religions can go to heaven.

The basis of the hell-fire punishment for disbelief is repeated over and over again in various ways in the Quran. Here is a partial list:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html

The passage 18:04-onward makes it clear that good deeds of disbelievers don't matter to Allah; only the believers will be accepted.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/18/index.htm#104

In his tafsir of 6:90, Ibn Kathir concludes that "Shirk eradicates deeds"
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=990&Itemid=61

This Sunni source concludes atheism is worse than polytheism,
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/113901/
though others would suggest atheism is merely one form of shirk.

Also, from the same popular fatwa site:
"[...] nothing [...] erases the good deeds of a Muslim altogether except kufr and shirk. This is indicated by the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever”
[al-Baqarah 2:217]""
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/107241/

I really don't care at all what religion anyone believes in. Or if they believe in any at all. I would just like to see all of them be tolerant of each other. Unfortunatly, one of them, namely islam, will not tolerate tolerance. And because of that, islam will not ever co-exist with Democracy and freedom. Which is something I value tremendously.
My only explanation for why every human being wouldn't value freedom is that they never experienced it. It was kept from them their entire life. Basicly, brainwashed from birth.
Life without freedom isn't life. Freedom is worth fighting for. Freedom is worth dying for. And I would much rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.

And all that for a man who probably never existed.Read:

"Video where Abbé Pages,French Catholic priest,says the Technical Reasons why for him Muhammad is a Myth"

http://www.antisharia.com/2012/02/26/video-where-abbe-pagesfrench-catholic-priestsays-the-technical-reasons-why-for-him-muhammad-is-a-myth/

AND ALSO

"Babur,Founder of the Mughal Dynasty in India,Destroyed the Temple of Rama,one of the Most Sacred in Hinduism"

http://www.antisharia.com/2012/02/16/baburfounder-of-the-mughal-dynasty-in-indiadestroyed-the-temple-of-ramaone-of-the-most-sacred-in-hinduism/

Muz governance entities are all basket cases and the closer they are to Maliki adhab tabooism, the worse they are.

Ibn Khaldun referred to the worst of the Maliki menace as "destroyers of any city they occupy." He moved to Cairo, to work against the Maliki drift. If he lived there now, he would be the first to be slaughtered.

Watch for the muz-hoodies to take a "sudden" interest in Maliki governance, which puts "qadis" (sharia sentencers) in control of the state. Due process is anathema to those barbarians.

with totalitarian tyrannies forming all over North africa and the Levant, the US is run by a Commander in Chief who colors dictatorship formation with "freedom." And Billary backs up the hyper-dhimmi with specious apologies heaped end to end.

BHO was never a Christian. His Chicago "church" was really a pan-cultist assembly, and included the Farrakhan traitors.

The doctrine of the 'justification by the faith' is not exclusive of muslims. Myself an agnostic in my adult life, having been born a catholic and raised in the beleif that salvation depends on deeds, I remember the shock it caused me hearing a USA metodist preacher say from the pulpit that all the good actions of Mother Teresa of Calcutta were in vain if she didn't have enough faith (as it seemmed later to be the case. The day I heard that I remembered the old Spanish joke that portrays a catholic apostate been doctrinally approached by a protestant minister who has to hear this: "Mister, do not waste your time with me: even knowing that Catholicism is the true creed, I do not buy it, so guess yourself the lousy chances you have..."
Cid Campeador

I'm trying to make sense of why or for what purpose Robert Spencer has singled out this particular post of an ex- Muslim that wants to villify Islam.

I mean that I have read many post by Muslim converts To Christianity why Islam sucks for crimes such as rape, murder, child molestation etc. etc and vice versa from Christian converts to Islam saying why Christianity sucks for the very same reasons. Eventually it becomes boring and I normally discard such stories in my bin together with many of the political spin stories.

However, I kept asking myself what is it about this story that made Robert Spencer to include it in his Jihad Watch forum and the only conclusion I came to was the final paragraph of the ex Muslim blogger and that is:

"That hatred is for none other than Mohammed, the very same person whom I used to love with so much conviction that he was the most perfect human being ever born on the face of the earth. I don't think that anyone or anything could have inflicted so much pain, that it actually makes me cry out loud every day and every night. I just wish I could go to Medina, dig up his grave, pull him out and set his bones or whatever of him remains on fire. I hate him, I hate him, I hate him from the core of my heart. If it weren't for him and his crazy make believe religion, the world would have been a very peaceful place indeed - a heaven on earth."

As an ex Muslim myself and now an atheist I also have my set of qualms why Islam and almost all other religions suck ( with the exception of Bhudism ) but I certainly don't have any hate for Prophet Muhammad, nor Jesus, nor Islam, nor Christianity and finally nor GOD. In fact I take my period in my Islamic life as a period of enrichment of my character that made me into who I am today and that is a proud, happy, contented and confident atheist.

Therefore the question I would like to pose are twofold:

Firstly to the ex Muslim - In expressing his hate and utter disgust for Prophet Muhammad does he not hate his own life during the period when he was a Muslim? Does he not feel misraeble every time he thinks about his past life when he was a Muslim? Does he not require psychiatric treatment about the anger and hate he is feeling towards himself and possibly towards other human beings especially Muslims?

Secondly to Robert Spencer - I would love to know or understand your motive behind inserting this bloggers story on JW.

Was the motive simply to highlight some or another atrocity by Muslims of which case there are plenty of factual stories to attend to instead of a hearsay blogger?

Or was the motive deeper? Was the motive to highlight the hate that a particular ex Muslim has for Islam and Muslims to the extent that such hate may be copied or emusculated by other ex Muslims and Christians?

I wait with baited breath for a reply to my questions.

Those of us that live in counties that allow free thought, couldn't understand Islams ideology, motivation, or commitment.

In the U.S. we take religion for granted. It's more like a savings account that we can draw from one day a week, than it is a faith. Islam doesn't have that care free life style because Islam really is serious 24-7.

We can't imagine being hunted down by our own family to be killed, for apostating (leaving Islam). But Muslims do it all the time, infact I've been told it is a requirement.

We can't imagine throwing acid in our wives face for not obeying the husband. But Muslims do it all the time. And than half of the women say they diserved it... Can you imagine doing that to your wife and then saying she diserved it?

Islams ideology is kept under the radar for this very reason. Those of you whom say all religions are alike, don't know much about religion. I'd say Islam is a 180 from Christianity.

Although Christianity teaches that you can only be saved through Jesus Christ, that always includes "through Jesus Christ judging your deeds and heart at the Last Judgment". The parable of the good Samaritan is all about someone who is a Jewish heretic (Samaritans still believe that they should sacrifice on their own mountain and not in Jerusalem at the Temple, don't accept non-Pentateuch books of the Bible, etc.) but who clearly understands and believes God's teaching on the action level (because he saves the poor guy beaten up by robbers).

Re: Mother Teresa, she did have plenty of faith. She was working entirely by faith, because she wasn't receiving any consolatory feelings (feeling God's presence, having "religious experiences", etc.) for a very long chunk of her life. This is known as "the dark night of the soul", and it's a sign that God is giving you advanced spiritual training. Like advanced athletic training, it makes you stronger in the end, but meanwhile you feel like crud and wonder if you can possibly go on.

This "spiritual aridity" and "darkness" also fit in with the "I thirst" spirituality of Jesus' Passion and the world's need, which she had been led to adopt before the "dark night" started. She was able to identify intimately with "My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?" You don't get more hardcore faith than that; and it is a promise that the rest of that psalm will also come true.

As for "secularism within Islam" - been there, done that... were Egypt, or Syria/Iraq under the Ba'ath party not attempts to build a "secular Islam"? Was that not the objective of Ataturk's Turkey? Well, look what's happening in all those places today. Seems like many (most?) Muslims associate secularism with corruption, or Western-style decadence... As well as that, they believe that their holy book has been dictated to word-for-word by Allah, and proscribes not only how they should prostrate themselves during prayer time - but also how they should live every little detail of their lives... As long as that's the case, why would secularism ever triumph over "devout" Islam? (especially given the vastly higher birthrates of fundamentalist Muslims)

"Similary I would use the term Queen Elizabeth because that is the title Elizabeth has come to be recognised or known in Britain"

That is her official title. She is the Queen (ruler) of England - just like the Sultan of Brunei is the Sultan of Brunei. The "prophet" Muhammad is only a prophet in the Muslim faith. Recognising him as a prophet is one of the 2 main elements of becoming a Muslim. Just like recognising Jesus Christ as the son of God is the centre of the Christian faith... do Muslims talk of "Jesus Christ the son of God"? I think not...

"...and the world even though I do not recognise kings and queens and in fact I detest the notion of kings and queens and another form of racism."

Do you also detest the many African kings and queens as a form of "racism"?!

"As I recall it took nearly two thousand years For Christianity to finally succumb and fall to secularism."

That's not quite accurate - Christianity WAS a secular religion - 2,000 years ago... ever since Jesus said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's - and give unto God what is God". For the following 300 years, Christians did not hold any form of power - nor did they desire it... Christians only became kings/emperors after Emperor Constantine. Later groups of Christians, such as the Amish & other protestant groups, also did not desire official power - already more than 500 years ago.

"we know that in any democracy and secular state people are by and large happy and not in violent conflict with each other and with rights and equality minorities are afforded protection."

So why then is democratic and secular Turkey becoming less secular?

"These ideas and feelings must eventually permeate all societies"

They ALREADY permeated Muslim societies - for example the Mughal empire under emperor Akbar the Great... societies which then went back to being non-secular.

"The Arab spring even though it is the removal of dictators is part of the chipping of Islamic societies towards a secular democracy similar to the west."

Then why are the parties winning the democratic elections largely Islamic parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood, or Hamas - with liberal parties winning at most 20%?

"I'm the eternal optimist"

Keep dreaming... but Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Gulf Arab states have other plans. And, to be honest - why WOULD Muslims want to be secular - if right now, their religion is the fastest-growing in the World, and in a short while they can lord it over infidels everywhere?! They would have to be selfless and (in their eyes) suicidal, in a way only Western nations know how to be.

Fayzal,

I'm an atheist from Canada. There are plenty of other atheists who comment.

F: "I get the impression that the clever journalism Robert spencer uses is meant to vilify the Islamic religion."

He's a critic of Islam. How would you distinguish between justified criticism and vilification?

F: "This journalism and together with many bigoted Christians on this forum turns any story into a punching bag to castigate ALL MUSLIMS and the ISLAMIC RELIGION as evil even to the extent that it is the handiwork of Satan."

Not all Christians here believe that. Anyways, I certainly don't agree with castigating all Muslims, or considering all aspects of Islam evil. Yet Islam does contain evil elements, and when these are believed and put into action, it becomes necessary to oppose it.

A distinction that Robert often makes, which is based on a statement by Ibn Warraq, is that there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. I disagree with this. I think logically if there are moderate Muslims, then their Islam is moderate, by definition. But I think what Robert is talking about is that there are no major schools or sects of Islam today that are moderate (i.e., that reject sharia, Islamic supremacy, and jihad to implement sharia).

One may argue the Ismailis, Ahmadis, and a few other small sects are exceptions to this. I can't say I agree with that with certainty; the Ahmadis don't necessarily reject sharia, and the constitution of the Ismailis (written by the Aga Khan) has some problems, though Ismailis today are quite moderate.

F: "I am also very critical of Islam in my country here in South Africa but I do not see Muslims lurking and waiting to blow up and kill every non believer or that Muslims are secretely conspiring to turn our country into the next Muslim state south of the Sahara."

Muslims are only a small percentage in South Africa (1.5% is what the CIA Factbook indicates), and as far as I'm aware SA is not involved in any military or other conflicts with Islamic countries. Still, though, isn't it the case that most Muslims in SA want some restrictions on what non-Muslims can express about Islam?

F: "In fact in South Africa our problems and dangers are a conservative and economically powerful Christian white populace trying to retain the privileges of the old apartheid era."
"In the end I want to correct and show Muslims that some of there dogma is incompatible with the modern world and to accept secularism as the prefered mode of governance. If this was possible with Christians why is it not possible with Muslims."

I agree that it is possible with Muslims as well. However, the probability, and thus the extent of the success, is likely to be less than what we have seen with Christianity. I would say that based on the historical track records and foundational principles in the texts. But what emerges from a plausible reading of the Islamic texts (Quran and Hadith) is more legalistic, political, and militaristic than what emerges from a plausible reading of the New Testament.

There is always going to be at least some small percentage of Muslims who will tend to be secular and not wanting to follow Islamic law. But as for trends, unfortunately it seems that the Islamists over the past few decades are increasing their influence and there has been an Islamic revival, with increasing desire for sharia and increasing re-implementation of it.

While I'd like to see a trend of increasing moderation and secular attitudes among Muslims, I'm just not seeing that in the larger trends. On the contrary, I see disturbing trends in the other direction, i.e., toward more sharia.

I think we should be doing what we can to encourage apostasy from Islam and criticism of Islam. This will lead people to either modernize and moderate their Islam more, or else leave the religion.

F: "Robert Spencers mode of journalism suggest that change is not possible within Islam and to rather ensure that Islam is wiped out of the face of earth."

Read the "About Robert Spencer" section on the site and you will see that your impressions are incorrect.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html
Here's what Robert actually says: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc."

he doesn't say it's impossible, but he says we must be realistic in our outlook.

F: "It is a "do not compromise with this heathen religion" attitude that makes me suspicious that this forum is used to not only bash Muslims and Islam but also to project a SUPERIOR Christian religion."

I would judge that Christianity in its current form and variation is less harmful than Islam in its current form and variation.

And I'm not sure what you mean by compromising with Islam. To the extent that there are good aspects, I don't need to compromise. To the extent that there are negative aspects, such as militarism and harsh elements of sharia, I refuse to compromise.

"So far from the way many members on this forum has responded to my enquiries it seems as if my suspicions are true."

If you are critical of Islam, you'll like this site, even if you don't venture into the comment section. Don't let some of the commenters throw you off. If you go to left-leaning sites, they have their share of problem commenters as well. (BTW, I'm not referring to anyone above in this thread, as I haven't read their comments). We all don't have to agree here.

You avoided the main point in my post. Perhaps you will answer it now. You wrote: 'In fact I take my period in my Islamic life as a period of enrichment of my character that made me into who I am today and that is a proud, happy, contented and confident atheist.'

This makes about as much sense as saying: In fact, I take my period in my life as a Nazi Stormtrooper as a period of enrichment of my character that made me into who I am today and that is a proud, happy, contented and confident supporter of Israel.

You see?! There's no logical connection between these two contradictory positions. It's a bizarre statement.
Then you also say, just as bizarrely, that you do not hate God. How can you love or hate something you believe doesn't exist - if we accept for a moment that you are an atheist?

In short, the more you write, the more your Muslim credentials show through. You're not fooling anyone here, y'know.

So, to summarize my point: You're 'logic' is fragmented and weak. What's *your* explanation for this?

You're a clown!

Unless he starts changing some of the specifics he is outing himself.

One of the dilemmas with Islam is that it requires that a Christian betray Jesus and, like St. Peter, pretend one does not even know Jesus. Jesus said if we are ashamed of Him, He will be ashamed of us. St. Paul exhorted Christian women to keep wearing veils (i.e., not to stand out) in public because Christians were being horribly persecuted and murdered. A Christian true to Jesus has a dangerous minefield to cross in being true to Jesus while at the same time protecting oneself around those seeking to torture and kill Christians.

In your smug, supremacist way, as usual, you wrote: I find it difficult to answer the HATE you have towards Muslims and Islam the religion.

You can't answer my point, because you don't have an answer. And as for hating Muslims, well ... I have the utmost sympathy for the millions of Muslims that would love to leave Islam, but can't. Those who are trapped in Muslim societies are victims of Islam, just as much as we non-Muslims are.

Finally, I don't need a psychologist; but Muslims who commit so-called 'honor' killings and Muslims who follow the Quranic mandate to 'slay the unbeliever wherever you may find them' are definitely in need of psychiatric treatment.

I have never killed anyone, I have never said that Muslims should be harmed in any way, I have never said that paedophilia is acceptable just because a man who died 1,350 years ago said it was OK. I am innocent.

PS When are you going to stop pretending you're an atheist?

Fayzal,

You wrote: "
Reply – If you are using apostasy as a euphemism for “proselytizing” of Christianity or Atheism for that matter than this is a form of RACISM..."

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that person X trying to persuade person Y, peacefully through rational discussion, to leave his/her religion and adopt some other beliefs, is racism? Have I understood you correctly?

If so, this would mean that you and I both are "racists" from trying to convince the other, in this discussion, of our views.

Obviously this seems a bizarre formulation to me, so perhaps you can clarify.

You wrote:
"Yes, I agree with you that Christianity in its current form of accepting secularism as the rules to engage in makes it less harmful than Islam and this is something that we both have discussed and accepted, but that does not make the SUPERIOR claims of Christians any less racial than it is."

If you agree with me that overall Christianity today as it is understood and practiced is less harmful than Islam overall today as it is currently understood and practiced, then I think you logically endorse the proposition that Christianity is superior in this respect. (Less harmful = better = superior). That would mean, by the definition you seem to imply, that you are a racist by your own criteria.

This of course does not mean to suggest that all Christians today are more moderate and secular than all Muslims today. But let's not be foolish; we can certainly make summary comparisons and summary statements based on those comparisons.

I asked:
"...isn't it the case that most Muslims in SA want some restrictions on what non-Muslims can express about Islam?"

You answered: "Reply – No, not at all."

Can you cite polling or survey data to support this? From what I've seen, there is not complete data, but the studies I've seen indicate that the majority of Muslims, including those living in non-Muslim countries (e.g., U.K. and in Denmark) want those who criticize or mock Islam and Muhammad to be criminally prosecuted and punished.

One other point: You mentioned that
"The only solution is to keep on showing to Muslims the material benefits of living in secular societies and as Muslim women keep on shedding the purdah and teenagers visit the discos more often without being restricted, the secularism will be overwhelming to their lifestyle."

I would estimate that based on the polls and surveys I've read, most Muslims favour the material benefits of secular societies, but most oppose non-Islamic values, such as freedom to criticize Islam publicly.

I suggest that discos etc. are not compelling or persuasive alternatives to Islam for most Muslims. I think we need to appeal to basic values, basic sense of justice and equality.

It is the basic notion of justice, which is violated so dramatically and extremely in the hell-fire punishment for disbelief, which "Liberated" above objects to, among other things, about Islam. Likewise, and worldly punishments for criticizing or leaving Islam are likewise terribly unjust, and must be opposed. Don't you agree?

Fayzal - "From what you are writing it seems that you are taking OFFENCE when any person (even an atheist) uses the term "Prophet Muhammad"."

Me - No, I'm not offended - I just think that it's, at best, a lazy statement (yes, I know it's one made by most people) - at worst, an act of submission to Islam - for whom recognizing Mohammed as a "prophet" is one of the most important things...

And sure - there are a lot of "Mo's" out there. But if one talks about "Mohammed"... or "the Islamic prophet Mo" - does that not make it clear enough which "Mohammed" is being referred to?!

Fayzal - "Reply - Your grasp of the English language seems very poor. I stated I detest all forms of SUPERIORITY i.e. racism including British Queens, African Kings, African Queens etc."

Me - Let's see - you wrote: "even though I do not recognise kings and queens and in fact I detest the notion of kings and queens and another form of racism." ". I understand "and" (another form of racism) is a typo? If so, I take it you regard "kings and queens" as a form of racism... so do you regard African kings and queens as racist? And if so, who exactly are they "racist" towards?!

Fayzal - "I just hope you expose your opinion without indicating that you HATE a particular person or a group of persons such as Muslims and the Islamic religion as many of your comments indicate."

Me - Can you pinpoint any specific comments where I "hate a person" or a "group of people" such as Muslims? On the contrary, my religion (Catholic Christianity) teaches me to hate an IDEA, not a person... as we are meant to love (care about) ALL people. Hence I don't hate a group of people with NO CHOICE over their religion (Muslims) - just a 7th century ideology called Islam, created (in my opinion) specifically to motivate its followers to conquer the world and form a "thousand-year Reich", much like Hitler's. In fact, I don't even agree with the killing of bin Laden. Much better in my opinion would have been to take him alive, and expose him to the teachings of Jesus... if he then converted away from Islam - what effect might that have had on others?!

Fayzal - "it stand to reason that Robert is trying to control the minds of his members to produce a certain reaction"

Me - Trust me - my mind, and (likely) most other commenters' is not being "controlled" by Robert in any way! I don't spend nearly enough time here for that to happen :) I started reading JW because it resonated with a lot of thoughts which I already had about Islam. But I also read many other sites, sometimes even Islamic ones. Besides JW - most of my information about Islam comes from the BBC (biased from the "other side" - but good for some balance), and from the (mostly-unfortunate) experience of family and friends at the hands of Muslims.

Fayzal - "the comments of Robert has to be tempered with the many successful and peaceful stories emanating from Muslims. I mean Muslims by and large are living peacefully in many secular countries including America, Canada and the USA. This means Muslims are contributing to the secular peace of those states."

Me - What stands out about those "peaceful stories" from Muslims, that isn't already present in other communities? Communities from which you don't get suicide bombings or large-scale "grooming" of young girls as an added bonus?! I agree - for a full picture, one would have to include stories of Muslim doctors, scientists, philosophers and others... but does the fact that they're in those fields mean that they can't adhere to statements such as Quran 9:29 ("fight the infidels... until they pay the tax") at the same time? We don't know enough about their private lives to decide that... and Islamists out to "conquer" or be violent are very good at hiding this. But even if we were sure of such details - how many articles would have to be published on JW for that full picture to emerge? Too many to make it an interesting site? Such stories of successful Muslims are already covered to death on other sites... having only the stories about the topics that concern us most (Muslim violence etc) is good enough for me - and I suspect most other readers.

Fayzal - "The world is not as spencer makes it out to be"

Me - I really hope you're right on this one... But while there's a POSSIBILITY that Spencer's right as well, I'd rather be vigilant than stick my head in the sand and "hope for the best". I have lived through a totalitarian regime, my family has experience of both Communists and the Nazis. I know what such mentality looks like and, given the option, I'd rather not take any chances... Most others who I've talked to here in Poland seem to share that opinion...

"I get the impression that the clever journalism Robert spencer uses is meant to vilify the Islamic religion."

Substitute the word "condemn" for "vilify", and all I can say is -- I would hope so!

If this massive, and continually growing, mountain of data (which I have dubbed Mt. Jihad Watch ) recording all the horrible, evil, unjust, hateful, intolerant, violent, deadly dangerous, and often grotesquely ghoulish shit that Muslims do day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year -- throughout the world from the Pacific to the Atlantic -- has some purpose other than to condemn the Islamic religion (with crucial emphasis on the aforementioned bolded descriptor of it), I'd say it would be a monumental mismanagement of Spencer's time.

... good deeds of his will go in vain, because no matter what he does, he would eventually burn in hellfire for eternity unless he realizes the truth before he dies and says the shahada".
..................................

Yes—and it works the other way 'round in the view of many Muslims, as well—that a pious Muslim, no matter how murderous or vile his deeds, will have a chance to go to Paradise.

In fact, given the tenets of Islam, such savagery is frequently considered a *sign* of piety. A Muslim who prays five times a day, fasts during Ramadan, and goes on the Hadj may or may not make it into Paradise—but a Jihadist who has killed Jews or blown himself up in a suicide attack is all too often considered to be on a fast-track to Jannah.

Fayzal Mahamed wrote:

I get the impression that the clever journalism Robert spencer uses is meant to vilify the Islamic religion...

I realize JW is a forum to keep check on the excesses and atrocities committed by Muslims and Islam but in order not to vilify the religious beliefs of Muslims or vilify Islam the comments of Robert has to be tempered...
..................................

Why should Robert Spencer have to scruple to avoid "vilifying" Islam and the religious beliefs of Muslims? Most of the tenets of Islam are utterly appalling, and lead to just the horrifying Jihad atrocities we see here at JW day in and day out.

Again, it seems that your goal is restricting the ability of Infidels to criticize Islam. We have no such restrictions here in the free world—at least, not yet.

In fact, we have to be able to speak openly about Islam and its depredations.

Are there Muslims who are good people? Of course there are—generally to the exact measure by which they comport themselves with other than Islamic standards.

But if they hold to the imposition of brutal Shari'ah law, the sacralization of rape and pedophilia, and the waging of violent Jihad, then we would be morally remiss if we *did not* "vilify" such horrors.

It would be like decrying those who dare to "vilify" Nazism.

More:

The Arab spring even though it is the removal of dictators is part of the chipping of Islamic societies towards a secular democracy similar to the west.
..................................

Do you really believe this? These nations of the "Arab Spring" are becoming dominated by "Islamist" parties, and are fast descending into full Shari'ah states.

The situation for the Copts is becoming more and more precarious in Egypt, and that country has made it clear that it almost certainly intends to scrap the Camp David Accords, which would have disastrous consequences for Israel.

The status of women is worsening, and the genuine secularists and democrats of the early days of the revolution have been marginalized and worse.

Where is Wael Ghonim now?

And Libya may be even worse. With the killing of the genuinely vile Gadaffi, the country seems to have descended into a hell of chaos, torture, and revenge killings.

As bad as things were under the old authoritarians of the region, they appear poised to become much, much worse...

There is *nothing* to indicate that this part of Dar-al-Islam is moving "towards a secular democracy similar to the west."

"My opinion is that if you do not hate the person than why should there be a hellfire for any person."

Because WE (people) are not God... Whatever happens to the soul after death is not up to us... What we can do is care about what happens to people. And if that means not agreeing with gay sex or sex outside marriage, or proselytising our beliefs to others, then that's what Catholics have to do! Then again, are Catholics the most anti-gay people in South Africa? I'll wager that's not the case - and not by a long shot...

Btw, are you trying to proselytise me? I do believe you're trying to ridicule my beliefs, and persuade me over to your argument... So are you not believing yourself to be "morally superior", and hence, by your reasoning, a racist who should be hauled before a court??

"if he or she is intent to convert other persons to Christianity in the “open market square” (often trough the use of coercion)"

To which type of "coercion" do you refer? Do you mean a cash payment, like an uncle of mine was once offered to convert to Islam? Or the luring of a woman of another faith by pretending to love and respect her, so that her children follow the father's faith? I believe that's also more widely practiced by Muslims...

But I don't believe that Christian proselytisers widely use any of these methods. The fact that you regard handing a leaflet or discussing with someone their beliefs (the usual methods if Christian proselytisation?!) as a worse "crime" speaks volumes...

"My definition of “moral superiority” (as opposed to moral equality) is that a person making such claims or displaying such behavior is a supremacist and therefore a racist.

In my opinion it makes no difference if a person claims he is morally more superior to other human beings because of the colour of his skin or his religious beliefs or for that matter, his irreligious beliefs."

Let's see - what is a belief? Is it not something you believe to be true? So, whether people are Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other faith, they believe their faith to be the correct one... And they therefore believe themselves to be "morally superior", do they not? (such feeling of "superiority" among Muslims is, as it goes, the subject of this blog post). So... By definition, are not ALL believers of ALL religions feeling themselves "superior" to other religions and hence, in your eyes, "racists"? (as to why that makes them "racist", I'm none the wiser)

Now - why do people have their beliefs? Because their parents also held them? Or because they were convinced of the larger merits of another belief through discussion with another person, or reading a book? (both forms of "proselytisation"). If this, in your world, becomes "illegal", then the only way to believe something is for your parents to also believe this- is it not? Do your parents not then become exactly like the proselytisers, "coercing" you to share their beliefs? Where then is there freedom of religion? Because in your world, for those people "born into" a religion, it seems not to exist altogether.

Fayzal,

This is silly.

You wrote: "My definition of “moral superiority” (as opposed to moral equality) is that a person making such claims or displaying such behavior is a supremacist and therefore a racist."

Thus by lecturing me and trying to convince me that you are right and I am wrong you are saying your views are superior and therefore you are a racist according to your own silly criteria.

You wrote: "I support the countries that have made proselytizing illegal."

There are no countries in which all proselytizing is illegal. All the countries in which proselytizing is illegal allow Islamic proselytizing or whatever else is approved by the authorities. These are simply selective laws to protect the majority or authority view.

Anyways, by your criteria you are a racist for suggesting that your ideas about proselytizing are better than anyone else's.

Like I said, this is silly. You are either being mischievous (e.g., trying to waste time), or you haven't thought this through.

"Reply - I totally agree with your observation which does not make the illegality of proselytizing wrong but it means that the citizens of the world should fight and agitate to make sure such laws are equally applied to all beliefs of superiority and should not be designed to protect a majority or minority."

I see you didn't answer Kinana's point about you "lecturing" him... How exactly does such lecturing, and trying to convince him of the better value of your arguments differ from "proselytising", and believing yourself to be "morally superior"?! So in your ideal world, should such an action not be illegal and punishable by court of law??

"I hope that explains your question"

Partly. Even though you think you're right and Kinana's wrong, you don't necessarily think yourself a morally superior person... but how about other walks of life, unrelated to religion?

Bankers, for example, are a popular target for criticism all over the Western world... "Oh, he's a banker - he does nothing except manipulate money" etc etc. And if you're in a different profession, in many cases you'll automatically get more respect from people. Are these people not acting morally superior to bankers? There are many other examples as well. But you might say "bankers Are worthless, and they deserve what they get" - fair enough... but is that not acting morally superior? And in that case, do (for example) Islamic fundamentalists plotting ready to kill for honour or to spread their faith not "deserve it" as well, and are others not entitled to feel morally superior?

As for devout Christians - which includes missionaries - presumably they adhere to Matthew 7:1, which says "Judge not, so you are not judged"... so, devout missionary Christians are not meant to judge people, or think themselves moraly superior. The judging is left for God to do. Devout christians are only meant to communicate their faith to others, pray for them and, if needed, try to help them... is that so terrible? Because compared to what certain others do, it seems quite trivial. And after getting your leaflet from the Christian group, you can chuck it in the nearest bin. Or, if they try to speak to you, politely say "no thanks". Is this what you would ban? If so, then it seems that you don't want those people interested in reading the leaflet to get it, and make up their own mind.

"However if the banker had to go and rape another person than I would say that the banker has committed an immoral act."

Because, according to YOU, rape is immoral... according to someone else (a rapist?), it might not be... so do you not see yourself as morally superior to the rapist?! And if you met someone who tried to justify rape, would you not feel bound to lecture him on the evils of what he's doing?!

Similarly, Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims are convinced that their beliefs are morally superior... otherwise, why would they believe in them?!

We have free speech in the world so that we can discuss ideas - for example now, on this forum... on TV, during presidential debates, or between Christians and Buddhists or Muslims on the respective merits of their faiths.

Seems that you would like to limit that free discourse between people who take part in it on their own free will.

"Finally what you are describing is not what two people are having a discussion and debate about the pros and cons of each person religion. For eg. there is nothing wrong with a Budhist and a Christian debating whether it is correct for Christians to hold the gay sexual orientation as an "abomination". However it would be wrong for the Budhist to have the discussion with a view to convince the Christian to convert to Budhism because the Budhist is assuming that he or she is morally superior to the Christian."

What if the Christian and the Buddhist were having such a discussion - trying to explain the background of their beliefs, WITHOUT "trying" to convert each other... but then, during the course of the conversation, the Buddhist feels that the Christian's beliefs make more sense, and wants to convert? Where would you put the boundary between "trying to convert" and having a discussion - if as a result of such a discussion, someone else might want to convert to your religion?! And how would "trying to convert" be proved by a court of law? Such laws could very easily be misused by governments for their own purposes - for example, a government might want to arrest someone speaking to the believer of another religion, by accusing them of "proselytising", when all they might be doing is having a discussion about the merits of an opposition political candidate.

It all depends on the judges - and judges are not only human, but they have family, children, and want to advance in their career - which may mean they "interpret" laws in a way that a government wants them to. Seems to me that such laws as banning proselytisation can be ripe for misuse - and result in, for example, banning the printing of religious texts, handing out of leaflets or anything else "inconvenient" to a government.

"It is terrible because although you are claiming you are not being morally superior the position any Christian adopts before trying to convert another person to his or her beliefs is to convince the other person you are morally superior, otherwise how else are you going to convince the other to convert."

Why do you think there are ANY people belonging to ANY religion in the World? Did someone not "convince" them to convert, while believing themselves morally superior? How would you have been (earlier) a Muslim, and me a Christian, if someone did not convince our ancestors to convert?! But you would like to ban that process - so the only way of converting would be - presumably - because of the parents' belief... How then would the parents' preaching be any better than that of the proselytisers? Are both of them not trying to "convince" others to adopt their beliefs?! But while proselytisers preach to adults, parents preach to children - who have less of a say in what they WANT to believe... so are these parents not, in fact, more restricting of their childrens' religious freedom than proselytisers?

Finally, you said earlier that "I could'nt give a twopence on what a person believes in as long as he or she does not physically harm the next person."... yet you say you want to ban proselytising - even if both the proselytiser and the person listening want to talk! What resulting "physical harm" can there possibly be?! If the Christian wants to convert the Hindu, but the Hindu doesn't want to talk about it, they can always say "no thanks - I don't want to talk to you". But you would ban a Christian proselytiser talking to a Hindu when they BOTH want to talk... That to me sounds like wanting to go against BOTH their will... in whose best interests? The Hindu's? Or someone else's, in a higher position, possibly with their own agenda? Sounds like the ideal law for a Saudi, Iran or North Korea-style dictatorial state - but not for any country which values the freedom for people to hold their own beliefs and ideas, and improve on them through discussion - including discussion with people who think that their own ideas are better, and maybe even "morally superior". The freedom on which, arguably, the strength of Western countries was built...