“On the left, people were saying that if you have any criticism against Islam, then you were a bigot against all Muslims. On the right, it was like, there are a lot of problematic things in Islamic scripture, so everyone who is Muslim must be banned, or profiled, or demonized. Both sides weren’t making that distinction between challenging ideas, which has historically moved societies forward, and demonizing human beings, which only rips societies apart.”
This isn’t accurate, but it’s a good summation of why even Leftists who are opposed to jihad terror will not discuss, will not debate, will not engage in any way with those who are perceived as “right-wing.” Leftists certainly do charge that anyone who notes that Islam has doctrines of violence and supremacism is a “bigot against all Muslims.” But it’s false that any serious analysts on the Right say that because “there are a lot of problematic things in Islamic scripture,” therefore “everyone who is Muslim must be banned, or profiled, or demonized.” Nor is there any demonization of human beings going on among conservatives; that enterprise is exclusively the Left’s, in its relentless defamation (as “Islamophobic,” “racist” and “bigoted”) of everyone who calls attention to and speaks honestly about the jihad threat.
In fact, Leftists constantly claim that I say “all Muslims are terrorists,” or “all Muslims hate us,” or some variant of those, but when I ask them to provide a quotation from me to that effect, they always go silent. This is a staple of the Leftist rap sheet on me, but it is an outright false claim, as is Ali Rizvi’s claim here that such views are held generally among conservatives.
Rizvi may be of the view held by his friends Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz, who appear to believe that it is acceptable to oppose jihad terror as long as one doesn’t want to do anything effective about it. No serious analyst wants Muslims “banned” or “profiled” out of some idea that all Muslims are terrorists, or out of racial hatred against Muslims (Islam, you may have heard me say before, is not a race). People support Trump’s travel ban because of the fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, and so they would prefer to keep out some harmless people rather than let in some harmful people. For the Left, even making that choice, rather than allowing in the harmful people and watching Americans get killed in jihad attacks, is racist, bigoted, and Islamophobic. What was that about “demonization” again?
“An atheist Muslim on what the left and right get wrong about Islam,” by Sean Illing, Vox, July 7, 2017:
“The left is wrong on Islam. The right is wrong on Muslims.”
These words were tweeted by Ali Rizvi, author of the new book The Atheist Muslim. Rizvi was born in Pakistan in 1975 into what he calls a “moderate to liberal Muslim family.” He was raised in Libya and later moved to Saudi Arabia, where he lived for more than a decade. He’s now a writer and physician based in Canada.
Rizvi’s book is partly a plea for secularism and partly a defense of Islam as a culture. It’s also an internal challenge to Islam as a body of doctrines. Rizvi speaks directly to agnostics, atheists, and humanists living in the Muslim world, enjoining them to embrace secular culture without abandoning their Muslim identity….
Criticizing Islam without demonizing Muslims
Sean Illing
This is not an easy book to write. You’re exposing yourself to a lot of criticism on all sides. So why write it?
Ali Rizvi
I grew up in a moderate to liberal Muslim family in three Muslim-majority countries that were culturally very different. I developed certain perspectives about the religion and the Muslim experience that most others didn’t have. I’m not just talking about Islam itself, but also the Muslim experience, which is more personal and more to do with identity rather than ideology or belief.
Like most issues, in the United States especially, the conversation around this issue — about Islam, Muslims, and terrorism — eventually diverged into the left and the right. You had the liberals with their view, and the conservatives with their view, and I felt both of them were really missing the mark. They were both conflating “Islam” the ideology and “Muslim” the identity. Islam is a religion; it’s a set of beliefs, a bunch of ideas in a book. It’s not human. Muslims are real, living, breathing people, and to me, there’s a big difference between criticizing ideas and demonizing human beings.
Sean Illing
And your sense was that both the left and the right were failing to capture this distinction?
Ali Rizvi
Neither side was making that distinction. On the left, people were saying that if you have any criticism against Islam, then you were a bigot against all Muslims. On the right, it was like, there are a lot of problematic things in Islamic scripture, so everyone who is Muslim must be banned, or profiled, or demonized. Both sides weren’t making that distinction between challenging ideas, which has historically moved societies forward, and demonizing human beings, which only rips societies apart.
Sean Illing
How does your book split this difference?
Ali Rizvi
I think all of us have the right to believe what we want, and we must respect that right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have to respect the beliefs themselves. That’s what this book is about. It’s about making that distinction between Islamic ideology and Muslim identity, and explores how we can have an honest conversation about ideas and beliefs without descending into bigotry against those who might challenge or hold them….
Bsrat says
Yes indeed the west in its entirety is wrong about islam. Islam is on a collision course with every none beliver. It’s core belief system is about Islamic supremacy thus all Muslims belive they are supirior to none believers of Islamic doctrine. Their belife is subjective but they fail to understand it which leads me to conclude we are all doomed.
John Forbes says
The initial challenge as I see it is to DEMAND that our so called leaders STOP saying Islam is a religion of Peace because for 1400 years it has been at war with anyone who does not worship & believe what MUSLIMS do !
Virtually all WESTERN DEMOCRACIES have contracted the diseases of COWARDICE ,DENIAL & APPEASEMENT & rather that facing up to the fact that the WEST is being attacked they all seek to shut down the debate with LEGISLATION seeking to end Free Speech !
the BIGGEST & MOST important challenge is to STOP this & End the SOROS FOUNDATIONS !
Janice Disher says
Spot on, John
Mike says
Why do you use islamists words ( non believers) to describe yourself ? Non -muslims would not be a better word ?
mortimer says
Disagree with Mike. We should use the CORRECT ISLAMIC word: KAFIR.
A kafir is what Muslims call us and they are ashamed to call us that to our face. Use the word in ‘KAFIR’ in the presence of Muslims and observe how uncomfortable they are.
Reason of the discomfort: THE JIG IS UP… you have seen both of their faces and they know they can’t trick you.
gravenimage says
Mike, we are describing how *Muslims* think.
Gerald says
“Atheist Muslim” is an oxymoron.
Westman says
The ultimate oxymoron. The oxymoron with a death sentence for uttering it.
gravenimage says
True, Gerald and Westman. The only reason Ali Rizvi might survive this is because he has left Dar-al-Islam for civilized Canada. Even there, there are plenty of pious Muslims who would murder him for being an Atheist.
Eur says
Not at all. I consider myself as a Christian atheist. I do not believe in God but my country, culture … it is evident that I am of Roman Catholic Christian culture. In the patron saint festivities of my town I sing to the virgin as my ancestors did, more or less the same as the believers do … everything from a point of view of tradition. Sometimes I accompany my mother to Mass but I stay outside. I go to the churches for baptisms, communions, weddings and funerals. Am I a hypocrite? No, I respect and accept my cultural roots … but I am not a believer.
somehistory says
You cannot be a Christian without belief in God and His Son. And Jesus said to be a Christian means to love Him and “obey His commandments.”
You don’t hate your relatives for their belief and you like, and take part in the “traditions.” But those things don’t make you Christian.
Kepha says
I’m pretty much on the same page with you, somehistory. But what Eur is doing is he is frankly admitting that the West just isn’t the West without its Christian underpinnings.
Laura says
Well said.
somehistory says
That’s true, Kepha. and thank you.
Thank you, Laura.
Mo says
@ Eur
“I consider myself as a Christian atheist.”
That term is an oxymoron. It does not even make logical sense. An atheist is someone who holds the view that there is no God. A Christian, at its most basic, is someone who believes the claims that Christ made about himself, which includes his divinity.
How can a person hold these two views simultaneously? They are mutually exclusive!
If you mean you grew up in a Christian-influenced culture and you still have a respect for the traditions and such, that’s possible. But it does not make you a Christian in the biblical sense of that term. (Which is really the only one that matters.) Words have meaning. They don’t just mean whatever we wish them to mean at any given time.
patriotliz says
AGREE!…it’s laughable for someone to call themselves a Muslim and an atheist…he ceases to be a Muslim.
“That’s what this book is about. It’s about making that distinction between Islamic ideology and Muslim identity, and explores how we can have an honest conversation about ideas and beliefs without descending into bigotry against those who might challenge or hold them”—-HUH? How is a Muslim ‘identity’ separated from Islamic ideology? Why not just be an apostate-atheist-whatever and be done w/ Islam all together…nostalgic attachment or something?
These atheistic-non-practicing or “moderate” Muslims by birth are still part of the problem by being part of the Umma that shelters the true believers until the Umma grows in number/power…then the true believers take over, institute Sharia and attack those “atheistic” Muslims along w/ the infidels. The atheistic Muslims can’t deligitimize the inhumane true believers…because… Islam intrinsically IS an inhumane ideology that has no place in a free society. Atheistic/Moderate self-identifying Muslims are protective of Islamic ideology and its propagation whether they believe in the Islamic commands of terrorism or not. IT DOESN’T MATTER. They are a “shield” for the inhumane ideology they don’t believe in.
Nazis who didn’t want to kill Jews like Hitler were still to be feared as long as they supported Hitler’s Nazism and called themselves Nazis. They could be secret traitors to overthrow Hitler and his Nazism…but when “free” of the Nazi totalitarian control they have to shed the mantle of Nazism. Muslims by accident of birth who don’t want anything to do w/ the evils of Islam have to shed the mantle of calling themselves Muslim.
Malon says
The better description – and maybe he meant this – would be “atheist with Christian roots” or “atheist with Christian education”
blitz2b says
If you refer to the new age ” cosmic Christ” mumbo jumbo, then yeah maybe, however Christianity is ABSOLUTELY NOT a culture, that you attach it to your choice of godlessness, but a revelation of the incarnation of the one true God in human form.
You may certainly relate with the superior teachings of Christ as a mode of living for yourself but you simply cannot use the title “Christian” as a prefix with any abomination of your choosing.
In essence, to make it clear ” A follower of Christ who disbelieves in the existence of a supreme all powerful supernatural being, is indeed an oxymoron…. Like it or not!
jule says
Christian means you believe in Christ who said the only way you can know God is by him. Just following traditions is nice but you cannot call yourself Christian. Christian isn’t a culture of traditions. You can be Christian without following any traditions.
TL says
True, but Vox is a leftist propaganda outlet devoted to presenting absurdity as truth. Fakery is their very reason for being.
RationalVoice says
If you take the guys point about it being an identity rather than a religion then it does make some kind of sense.Its a bit like the old joke about the Atheist who found himself confronted by a terrorist in a fierce Protestant part of Belfast.He protested he was an Atheist and he should not be hurt.The Protestant terrorist threateningly said “Aye but are you a Protestant Atheist or a Catholic Atheist?”
I had a Hindu colleague in work who was telling me about his religion.When I asked him if he really believed that stuff of was it just his culture.He hesitated at first then admitted it was just his culture.
That’s all very well as anybody with at least two brain cells should know the content of all religions is superstitious fiction but when people actually put it into practice by hating and not tolerating non believers we get the murders and massacres we have seen down through history.
Best to not identify with any of the brain warping fairy stories and rely on common sense and Science !!!
Joe says
Aristotle proved that all things came from a single God. Since then many more proofs were added to this. If you are logical, you should refute these proofs which remain unchallenged for centuries if not millenniums.
Science should be based upon the truth. If you want and can find the statistics, you can find both definitions of sin (death and unhappiness) through statistical interpretation. For example, people who go to Church live much longer, because their is less conflict between the soul and spirit.
The scientific method was invented by a Catholic monk.
If you know anything about religion, you know that religions are not all the same. For example, Islam calls for hate, and Christianity calls for love. Love and hate are opposites.
Science wasn’t a religion until recently. Now people believe is science, but have no fact to base their belief. For example, science, and all the data, says that 97% of CO2 is from plants. It only stays in the air about 15 years before it recedes to the dirt. This is why everyone drills the ice to check the levels of CO2 as an indication of temperature. CO2 is a thermometer because more plants grow when it is warmer. What good is a thermometer if it can only go up? Everyone knows the CO2 recedes from the atmosphere after a few years, but try telling that fact to “Scientists”. This makes global warming based on some belief system that opposes science. Yet, no one can question the lack of facts behind global warming without condemnation by the global warming priests. It is not just global warming, either, relativity and many other scientific subjects are used by people to enforce their view without any facts to back them up.
Rather than base your happiness on “Science”, you should base it on “Truth”.
mortimer says
Gerald suggest that Rizvi being an ATHEIST MUSLIM is an ‘oxymoron’. Yes, it is. Rizvi wants to have it both ways. Islam does not provide that option.
blitz2b says
Mortimer, actually because Islam unlike Christianity has more than just a spiritual element to it. Islam is a socio-political system and more of a ” way of life’ than a religion, and the term “Muslim” only refers to “one who submits”, so then could one simply reject the spiritual element while still holding firm to the cultural component of the faith?…. I don’t know…. This is what Rizvr is supposedly doing with Islam.
gravenimage says
Even assuming that the culture of Islam can be separated from the faith, is there any reason to believe it is any less savage? Not from what I have seen.
blitz2b says
@graven,
Actually the evil part of Islam comes from the fact that one has to obey Allah in matters of the infidel. If one ignores the religious and only adheres to the cultural then maybe just maybe a reformed non- conforming Islam could emerge…. If that makes any sense…
mach37 says
What is the point of calling yourself a Muslim if you reject Islam? If you don’t believe in Allah you simply are not Muslim. Following some of the tenets of Islam but not believing in Allah makes you an apostate.
carol says
Rizvi sounded somewhat interesting for a while (despite his “dressed-up” victim card) – but he definitely lost me at this condescending, familiar refrain:
“I think all of us have the right to believe what we want, and we must respect that right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have to respect the beliefs themselves.”
Those beliefs/rights end, as they say, “at the end of the other fella’s nose”. No one can build a proper house on hogwash or sand.
Buraq says
This clown’s label, ‘Atheist Muslim’, makes as much sense as a label like ‘meat-eating vegetarian’. In any case, there are 6 articles of faith in Islam. If you don’t accept them all, you are not a Muslim; and so you can be hung out to dry – probably literally!
The first Article of Faith is that there is only One God (Allah). It is the central belief in Islam, and arguably the most important one.
He’s a clown, but the Left will be rolling that nonsensical title around their tongues until they get the feel of it – Atheist Muslim, meat-eating vegetarian. Yeah, sounds good!
Clowns!
dsinc says
You nailed it Buraq, meat eating vegetarian.
Bev says
I believe your take on the right is incorrect. Islam is a political system, a totalitarian theocracy, that uses religion and laws to control their populace 24/7/365. 5 times a day you are required to pray. And Sharia has some pretty stiff penalties for misdemeanors. You cannot become secular because the Islamic control systems will not allow. Secular law requires the equal treatment of all persons. This is impossible under Islam because women are considered a lesser person and this lesser concept is reinforced in both religion and laws.
The ticket to heaven under Islam is to kill for Islam. The best time to have lived under Islam was during the time of the prophet. Nothing of any real scientific discovery has come out of Islam since the Prophet. The practice of marrying 1st cousins has created mental and physical difficulties under Islam. Honor killings, FGM, the marrying of little girls, it can’t be any fun in life to be born female under Islam.
Billie Foreman says
I acre with you Bev.. It’s easy to understand why men would be islamist,but why any woman would ever choose to be Islamist is just stupid.
carol says
Females in Islam, unfortunately – and especially in the glorious past some would love to revive – have had nowhere to turn. Their sole reason d’etre (e.g. per Erdogan) is to be MOTHERS (to create more important “big boys” like himself I’m sure).
Women are like frogs immersed in this milieu to be slowly boiled and savoured like hijab-clad chickens. One of ’em safely in every pot and more in the whorehouse in the sky – blessed be to Allah!!
Tip to Rizvi: Beliefs have CONSEQUENCES and intelligent people are RESPONSIBLE for their choices.
Omar Beddali says
Atheist muslim ? What’s that ?
miriamrove says
Exactly! It is like one calling himself and atheist christian. Oxy moron. m
Daniel Triplett says
We’re getting steamrolled by Islamic Manifest Destiny.
Talking about it isn’t enough.
If we don’t kinetically push back, we will perish.
“Total War: Extinguishing Islam from Earth”
by Maj Daniel Triplett
https://medium.com/@dantriplett/islamic-jihad-is-total-war-for-all-marbles-6c858098b76e
dhans says
While I agree in theory, you must ask yourself the very important question our own leaders have been probably asked. Do you want to create and get into a war with 23% of the worlds population? I don’t think this is winnable. Some sort of separation seems more desirable.
Daniel Triplett says
We’re already in a war with the Ummah. Only one side is fighting the war though–the animals who declared it 1400 years ago.
We’re losing badly, and will continue to lose until all is lost unless we start fighting back hard.
gravenimage says
dhans wrote:
While I agree in theory, you must ask yourself the very important question our own leaders have been probably asked. Do you want to create and get into a war with 23% of the worlds population?
……………………………
dhans, Muslims are at war *with us*. Haven’t you noticed all of the Jihad terror attacks against us? Don’t you know that Islam teaches the violent subjugation of unbelievers?
Daniel Triplett says
FWIW, I’m currently poll-testing this essay on Twitter. The current results are 95% in FAVOR of the strategy.
That’s compelling. My strategy has near-unanimous support.
I last poll-tested it two years ago, with the same 80% support my strategy had across several polls.
However, I removed some extraneous material, adding more comprehensive material, resulting in a succinct overall strategy for our victory in this war.
Again, 95% of the public at large agree with this strategy (the %5 are likely Muslim voters).
If any of you have a better strategy, now’s the time to articulate it broadly for all Kaffirs to hear.
gravenimage says
Daniel, we were almost entirely safe from Islam for almost 200 years by isolating the Muslim world. They only became a danger to the West when we forgot what a threat Islam is and began letting Muslims in.
Daniel Triplett says
With respect, that’s not entirely true.
Agreed, letting Muslims in was a foolish and deadly mistake, and the West’s problems with Muslims have soared ever since.
But for the first 39 years of our country’s existence, we had severe problems with the Ummah. Read what John Q. Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison had to say about it.
From 1776, the Barbary Muslims raided our commercial shipping, looting the cargo, kidnapping and demanding ransom for the crews, or enslaving the crews altogether. The US Government for the first 25 years paid annual “Tribute” money to the Ummah that equaled 20% of our National budget.
Up to that point, America had no Navy. That’s why Jefferson started our Navy–to protect US commercial shipping against the Ummah. Americans were tired of getting ripped off with the Tribute money. For the same amount we were spending in Jizya, we could build and maintain a Navy, which is what we did.
Then came a series of wars we fought against the Ummah from 1801 – 1815.
But even today, American shipping is harassed by Muslim pirates.
By the end of the millennium, the African population will soar from 1 Billion today, to 4 Billion by 2100. Keeping them contained will be extremely difficult, It’s nearly impossible today as it is.
And what about all the Muslims pouring in via land routes from the East into Europe?
Containment is difficult, if not impossible.
Dar al-Islam is a 3000 mile wide swath stretching from Morocco to The Philippines. How could we possibly patrol that much land and sea area?
Besides, even if we could contain them, that would just give them Safe Haven to plot jihad and build nuclear weapons.
Even in America, keeping the Muslims out is nearly impossible. Canada is friendly to Muslim immigration.
Dennis Michael Lynch produced a movie, “They Come to America III.” He filmed an ice bridge between Canada and NY. The Canada side has a mosque/madrassa the size of a large university campus. Hundreds of Suburban loads of Muslims have been driving across into NY daily, completely out of sight and unopposed by US Border Patrol. So even if we build a Supermax Fence along the entire 1933 mile Mexican border, the Muslims will still come through the 3987 mile Canadian border.
zimriel says
Shahab Ahmed, “What Is Islam?” explains the atheist-Muslim concept. he argues for an “Islamicate” culture which is based on Islam… in part, but also has inherited Persian and Late Antique Oriental aspects (Syriac, Coptic, Berber etc).
Johan Elzinga says
Why would you base anything on Islam? Or on Christianity? Or on one of those very old books that we forgot to burn after we found out that most of the stuff in it is indeed nonsense, and now we believe that the earth is not flat and now we believe that women should have equal rights? Please, please, stop basing your beliefs on things that are in some book. Base them on what you think is right and use your brains. If you really believe that there is a God – which I don’t – then believe that he (or she, or it) gave you that brain. Use it!!!!
TL says
Johan, do you know the roots of your own name??
Kepha says
Hij weet niet wat zijn naam betekent.
I think we have here something like Rivzi, but from a “Christian” culture.
Bev says
Just so you know the majority of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
gravenimage says
zimriel wrote:
Shahab Ahmed, “What Is Islam?” explains the atheist-Muslim concept. he argues for an “Islamicate” culture which is based on Islam… in part, but also has inherited Persian and Late Antique Oriental aspects (Syriac, Coptic, Berber etc)
…………………..
“Inherited”–that is, conquered and appropriated.
But apart from a few innocuous aspects like food, Islam has infected *everything*.
somehistory says
The *culture* and *religion* are the same: beat wives, rape children, torture animals, live off the work of others, lie, lie and lie some more, murder those who disagree or support those who murder the people who disagree, and murder family members who don’t toe the *culture* line, keep on lying, whine and complain and lie to gain advantages, etc.
This moslum is no different. Supporting the *culture* of islum is supporting the *religion* of islum. There is no separation. He is just another tool of satan.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Somehistory.
carol says
A little off-topic but yesterday a host on Detroit radio spoke about eradicating bullfighting. Recently a bull’s horns were set on fire as it was chained to a post. The poor thing ended up pulling the post out of the ground and committing suicide via the post. He says this was not a Spanish sport but was imported to “Andalusia” by the cruel Muslims – whose gratuitous cruelty toward animals is well-known.
somehistory says
What a waste of oxygen these *creatures* called moslums, are, They have no regard for the sanctity of life.
Jaladhi says
Either you are a Muslim or an atheist! You can’t be both atheist and Muslim calling yourself atheist Muslim, perhaps atheist ex-Muslim is more accurate!
Mark Swan says
He is just peddling his book.
Guy Forester says
Dear Sir,
Now that you are done explaining why “left and right wing” Americans need to have a dialogue about islam, please explain how we are to relate to such minor inconveniences like beheadings, mass shootings, bombings, stabbings, motor vehicle drive overs, and planes crashing into buildings?
Perhaps you could have a pleasant chat over tea with some of these true believers, like Daniel Peal did before his head was cut off by one of these poor misunderstood souls, so demonized by the west.
I have no interest in reading this book, but I would like to see your next one that addresses the real issues we have, if you survive your encounter with the true believers.
Guy Forester says
Correction, Daniel Pearl. Where is that spell checker when you really need it?
PRCS says
Likely wouldn’t have caught “Peal”.
gravenimage says
+1
Ren says
“Rizvi speaks directly to agnostics, atheists, and humanists living in the Muslim world, enjoining them to embrace secular culture without abandoning their Muslim identity…”
There are many ex-muslims in the world. This proves that when one finds out about a “reprehensible” doctrine, if he’s rational, will dismiss it. Alleging a “reprehensible” doctrine as part of an identity only exposes insanity.
carol says
Ren…now that you’ve said it, it’s out in the open. Phew!
Paul Ashley says
” … enjoining them to embrace secular culture without abandoning their Muslim identity…”
In an Islamic majority country, how long will that “enjoined” person live?
gravenimage says
Exactly, Paul.
Terry says
Questions about the author.
Born in Pakistan, then lived in Libya then SA then (or now, ) Canada.
He is a doctor.
Why did he move around so much?
Just curious.
Kepha says
While I welcome Rivzi’s criticism of the Left’s take on Islam (the Left is the great reducer of all narratives, to the point where a Leftist “education” is a recipe for ignorance), he has a lot to learn about the RIght’s take on Muslims.
First of all, a lot of us here who are Rightists recognize that individual people can be better than the traditions they profess. While we are critical of Islam as a belief system, many of us are quite uncomfortable with calls to expel or bar all Muslims willy-nilly; and we refuse to treat every Muslim as a criminal.
That Rizvi calls himself an “atheist Muslim” shows he is steeped in the Leftist narrative that views everything through the lens of identity politics. That in itself is a problem.
gravenimage says
Good points, Kepha.
Terry Gain says
Kepha
How could you possibly know whether a Muslim is, at base, a Jihadist? You can’t. Which is why banning Muslims is the safest course. I have absolutely no problem banning Muslims. If they wish to adhere to that evil, violent, duplicitous and irrational ideology, I do not wish to have them as neighbours.
Kepha says
@Terry: How do I know that one of my Presbyterian co-religionists from the North of Ireland isn’t, at base, a terrorist who’d love to blow up a few “Papists”? Or another Presbyterian coreligionist of mine from Manipur, or Mizoram, or somewhere else in the eastern end of India isn’t a radical separatist who’d just love to see a few caste Hindus (and Bangladeshi Muslim squatters) stuffed into a bus and driven over a cliff? Now, maybe I could make a case from my Scriptures, or even from the Westminster Confession and Catechisms that such a coreligionist has a few things of which he should repent, just as I have. I am merely admitting that God knows individual human hearts better than I do.
And lest some of our fellow posters congratulate themselves for having shed a traditional theism, I simply can’t help but notice that in the 20th century alone, far more people were murdered, imprisoned, exiled, and ruined over the proper interpretation of scientific socialism than suffered for the wrong kind of Christianity or none at all in the 15 centuries between the conversion of Constantine and Napoleon’s shutting down the Spanish Inquisition. Further, seeing the aggressive lawfare targeting the non-supporters of organized perversion under the O [mal-]administration and in our badly corrupted courts, I’m not sure our “secular” neighbors are as into “live-and-let-live” as they pretend to be.
I am by no means putting out an apology for Islam. I’ve noted before that its ethics seem to bless the worst instincts in dominant males. I am very much aware of the dangers posed by Islam’s jihad ideology. But it also strikes me that there are those who call themselves Muslims eager to put as much space as possible between themselves and current jihads.
Joe says
Islam has murdered at least 270 million people over 1400 years. Communism (actually it is Fascism posing as Communism) is a distant second. Muslims make Nazis look good.
Bev says
I don’t really know of any Christian religions that call for the death of people who do not believe what they believe. That may be simplistic, but that is the difference between Islam and other religions. Islam requires you as a pious believer to do what the Qoran demands. And killing is required in order to get into heaven. The more you kill the more you will be rewarded. This is why they cannot denounce terrorism.
Daniel Triplett says
Nor could our grandfathers separate the “good” Nazis and Shintos from the bad, so we bombed every German and Japanese man, woman, and child in sight until they surrendered. We wouldn’t have won the war if we didn’t.
Wellington says
Seems there’s end to the foolishness of man. Here we have just another example of this general truth, backed up by so many comments already on this thread.
——–though “atheist Muslim” is an extra good example of just how foolish the human condition can sometimes be. No doubt.
Time for a beer and a BLT. No doubt.
PRCS says
Ummm.
gravenimage says
“Atheist Muslim” says “The left is wrong on Islam. The right is wrong on Muslims.”
…………………….
What a load of tripe–beginning, of course, with the concept of “Atheist Muslim”. He is either a Muslim, or he is an apostate from Islam.
carol says
Maybe he’s a “semi-sheep” in wolf’s clothing?
mortimer says
I demand to the answer to this question: “Mr. Rizvi, WHEN THE JIHAD COMES, WHOSE SIDE WILL YOU BE ON?”
Ali Rizvi is actually a confused man. He thinks he can be a CULTURAL MUSLIM and still be an atheist. Not so.
Ali Rizvi’s thesis that we should not CONFLATE the person with the ideology is a COMMONPLACE among conservatives already.
Shame on him for not knowing who his friends are. Most conservatives would slap Rizvi on the back and say ‘Good book!’ But he should NOT be DEMONIZING HIS FRIENDS.
Does Ali Rizvi not think he needs Conservative friends?
To Rizvi I ask: ‘Are you in or out? Because you surely CANNOT be half in Islam or half in Nazism. WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?’
gravenimage says
Good question, Mortimer.
John Haller says
“Grasshopper. Man who tries to climb over a fence, but stops half way does not become a member of the sky”
PRCS says
Let THAT sink in.
mortimer says
There are TWO KINDS of Muslims: 1) Those who conduct jihad and 2) Those who let them.
Anyone Muslim who opposes jihad has left Islam.
Any Leftard who remains silent about jihad is a dhimmi accomplice of jihad.
Jason says
“Challenging ideas, which has historically moved societies forward”.
Yes, you do challenge their ideas at first. But if they refuse to abandon them and continue to attack you and work to destroy your culture, then you most oppose them as a people.
Sam says
Summary: Islam is evil. Muslims follow dictates of Islam so they are either evil or ignorant. Either case what muslims do or not do have helped and will help Islam. So Muslims help the spread of EVIL.
Any questions?
PRCS says
“so they are either evil or ignorant”
Mostly.
But they could be both ignorant (of Islam’s teachings) AND evil.
PATRICIA FRANCES KOENIG says
Why take advice from an atheist Muslim?
RodSerling says
Ali Rizvi is one of these folks among the secular atheists who isn’t involved in actually doing anything to oppose sharia, Islamization, and the various jihads in the West. For this group it’s all about talking, writing, social media, and holding conferences. While those things are important, it has become clear to me over the years, and certainly by last year, that the counter-jihad left (as Robert calls them) including Harris, Dawkins, and others associated with them such as Rizvi and various ex-Muslims, has for all practical purposes “collapsed.” They backed away from the rising challenge posed by increasing Islamization, especially with the mass influx of single fighting-age Muslim males due to the actions of Merkel and others. It’s basically impossible to talk about the disproportionate violent crime, including rapes, targeted largely at white women and girls (and even boys), demographic trends, the need for immigration controls, and so on, without being attacked as “racist” by the establishment media and politicians. So Harris and others have backed off of these issues. Harris spends much of his time now not talking about Islam, and, when he does, he substitutes in people like Maajid and Ali Rizvi and Sarah Haider to convey his views on “Islam”-related topics. Occasionally he’ll get Douglas Murray. It’s easy to see how all of this is being shaped by Harris’ and Dawkins’ conformity to identity politics. The idea is you have to be non-white, or at least not a straight white male, to criticize Islam. Rizvi, intentionally or not, is benefiting from this dynamic. Through this bargain, Harris and Dawkins can present themselves as non-racist, and Rizvi and others can present the criticisms of Islam that Harris and Dawkins would be able to get across more easily of they were not straight white males.
Basically these folks are in a position now where they’ve invested so much in this issue that they have to somehow continue talking about the problem, while portraying themselves as the non-racist Islam critics (and thereby continue to get mainstream media exposure, publishing deals, speaking venues, etc.). This is not to say they don’t care about the issues. I believe they do. Perhaps not as much as those who put their lives on the line to oppose Islam, but they do genuinely care. But they can’t make the recommendations that need to be made to solve the problem, and they can’t even recognize or talk much about major aspects of the problem (e.g., systematic rape of British girls on “an industrial scale” over the past few decades) without being barred from mainstream society. They can’t have careers if large portions of the general public perceive them as racist or so stigmatized as to be avoided. This is something Harris himself has recognized, and he has allowed himself to be trapped in this game on the topic of Islam.
To position themselves as the non-racist but reasonable critics, they portray many on the left as hopelessly politically correct and naive about Islam on the one hand, and many on the right as bigoted or racist against Muslims on the other hand. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but that’s essentially how they’re positioning themselves to carve out a kind of niche. Marketing considerations cannot be overlooked. Perhaps legitimately fearing that he needed to rescue his career, Harris for example in 2013 had to go to great lengths to portray himself as not racist. This meant allying with people like Maajid Nawaz, Ali Rizvi, and others. Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali, bitten by similar allegations (e.g., the Brandeis case), had to make a major change of course, turning to make the case for Islamic reform. This, despite the fact that she says in her book on Islamic reform that she doesn’t believe reform is the best option–she thinks people should leave Islam. The position of Dawkins, Harris, Hirsi Ali, has become strangely distorted.
I followed Ali Rizvi for some time and then I noticed that from time to time he started injecting sneering and hostile remarks and “jokes” about “white people.” Over the past few years especially it has become “fashionable” for some folks, including white leftists, to frequently make sneering remarks about “white people.” Rizvi is one of those sneering individuals. He is also kind of an Aslan-like jerk on twitter.
In any case, Rizvi is now attacking Anne Marie Waters, with the usual charges and smears, now that she is running for leadership of the UKIP. Waters opposes FGM, rape gangs, and the general insanity regarding Islamization and political correctness in the U.K. Unlike Rizvi, Waters actually wants to do something in the real world to stop these problems. The fact that Rizvi opposes her gives you some idea of where Rizvi’s priorities are: Continue to posture and position himself as one of the non-racist reasonable critic of Islam, continue to profit off a primarily white audience that is concerned about Islamization, while doing nothing about it except talk. The Islamic supremacists want the same thing: endless talk about Islam, while Islamization and the decline of the West continues apace. There is no pressure and no incentive for Muslims in the West to drop Islam or reform it. They see how weak and compromised the West has become, and how strong Islam is becoming. The preponderance of the indicators all point to Islam becoming dominant in the West. That is going to be increasingly dangerous and deadly for non-Muslims, to say nothing of the oppression and the erasure of a civilization that took thousands of years of struggle to achieve. Harris, Rizvi and others have, or are at least selling, the unrealistic hope of a massive and rapid reform of Islam perhaps combined with huge numbers of Muslims in the West abandoning Islam. But their hope is not realistic to anyone who has seriously studied the facts regarding this major problem of our age.
Due to the prevailing political correctness and fear of being tarred as racist, one of the most damaging things you can do to an Islam critic or opponent of Islamization–thereby enabling Islamization–is to falsely accuse them of racism in public. This is exactly what Ali Rizvi has done, thus enabling Islamization. Why? So he can celebrate Ramadan with his family and friends? If these really are Rizvi’s priorities, then he is of no help, and is actually a liability, in defending the West. Defending the West must take precedence over the warm and fuzzy feelings Rizvi has about Ramadan etc.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the additional information, Rod. None of it surprises.
RodSerling says
Thanks Graven.
One thing I should add about Dawkins is that more recently he has tried to follow his doctor’s advice to avoid controversy because he had a stroke in early 2016. Basically he’s supposed to avoid stress for health reasons. So we don’t see as much of the ruthlessly politically incorrect Dawkins now. For attempting to back off of controversy at this stage of his life, I certainly don’t blame him.
But what I said about Dawkins above applies before he had the stroke.
gravenimage says
I had not known that Richard Dawkins had had a stroke. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he is brave and principled when it comes to Islam. I hope he stays healthy and well.
PRCS says
I didn’t know that either.
Sarah says
“Muslims are real, living, breathing people, and to me, there’s a big difference between criticizing ideas and demonizing human beings”
I do not think I have ever met a person, nor heard of any speech from anyone wherein they refute the concept of Muslims being real, living and breathing PEOPLE. We all understand that Muslims are human beings, like anyone else. So don’t give me that nonsense.
I’m tired of this this self-made martyrdom and victimhood. This guy wants ‘honest discussion’- but he wants to colour the discussion before beginning, weighting it with imaginary victimization, so as to help control the debate to an outcome that he wants. Come on.
As for demonizing human beings – well, here’s the thing. Islam is a belief system that tends to be all encompassing, covering off for religion, culture and politics. Not every Muslim follows every part to the letter, not every Muslim presumably, wants Sharia law installed, for instance.
But every single Muslim alive and breathing as a human being, alive on this planet, continues to perpetuate Islam and continues to allow its very EXISTENCE by devoting themselves to it and by propping it up as a result of being Muslims.
Islam would not exist without Muslims. Its as simple as that.
That makes every single last Muslim on the planet, accountable for Islam.
IDEOLOGIES DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT HUMAN BEINGS TO BELIEVE IN THEM, SPREAD THEM AND UPHOLD THEM.
And Islam is responsible for tremendous death, for tremendous poverty, misery, strife, violence and conflict. Islam is responsible for tremendous hatred against women and Islam is responsible for the shitty cesspool countries out there that keep delivering hordes of MUSLIMS into the West, demanding a better life for themselves.
“I think all of us have the right to believe what we want, and we must respect that right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have to respect the beliefs themselves.”
I agree with this statement. But as living, breathing human beings – as ADULTS – we have the right to believe in what we want to believe – but we are ACCOUNTABLE for it. Why is it that when it comes to Islam and Muslims- that there is NEVER any accountability or individual responsibility?
A Muslim can believe in Islam til the day they die, for all I care. They can knock their socks off. But if they BELIEVE in it then they AGREE with it and they SUPPORT it and they UPHOLD it. As functional, mentally competent, SANE adults – they are therefore ACCOUNTABLE for not only what they believe in – but THE CONSEQUENCES that arise from their beliefs.
That means that Muslims are responsible for Islam. They are responsible for the poverty. For the misery, the discrimination, the subjugation of women and outright misogyny. The sickening violence. The sexism and sexual obsessions that make up EVERY single level and layer of Islam. For the conflicts, the starvation, the mass migration, the suffering, the lack of opportunities, the lack of choices, rights and freedoms.
None of this would exist, if Islam did not exist. If Islam did not exist, then women being forced to cover themselves so as to not ‘tempt’ men, would no longer exist. If Islam did not exist, then sectarian Shiite vs Sunni violence would not exist. If Islam did not exist than Al Qaeda and ISIS and Boko Haram and Hezbollah and all the rest, WOULD NOT EXIST. And the list just goes on and on.
But they do all exist – because of Islam. And Islam only exists, BECAUSE MUSLIMS CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN ISLAM, SUPPORT ISLAM AND DEFEND AND UPHOLD ISLAM.
So get real. I blame Muslims because they are responsible for Islam. I hold Muslims to account because they are accountable for Islam.
If Muslims don’t want to be held to account or to be held responsible for the sickening atrocities and outright obscenities that Islam brings to the world – then Muslims have two choices. Either abandon that POS belief system outright, OR, reform it from the ground up.
I loathe Islam. It sickens me. I am disgusted by it. Ergo, I have been labeled an Islamaphobe, for having these beliefs. I have to be careful about what I say and what I do, in order to not be charged (depending on the country and the laws at hand) with breaches of the law relating to my supposed ‘Islamaphobia’.
So here is a first class, undeniable example of where Muslims EXPECT me to be held to account for my beliefs. I am expected to be held responsible for my beliefs. But Muslims don’t have to be held to account for theirs?
Get real.
John Haller says
Precisely.
carol says
Sarah…you’ve fleshed the issue out wonderfully well. Your post should be sent to politicians and the public around the world (over and over again).
gravenimage says
Fine post, Sarah.
Matthieu Baudin says
“… People support Trump’s travel ban because of the fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, and so they would prefer to keep out some harmless people rather than let in some harmful people…”
Well said!
In addition, police and other security services need to embrace ‘profiling’ as an essential tool to screen and respond quickly to potential threats. Non of this need get in the way of ordinary people behaving politely and reasonably to those many Muslims who appear to be seeking normal, calm and unobtrusive lives.
RodSerling says
p.s. Question: Would Rizvi’s family and friends have a problem if he were to defend the West? Why couldn’t he oppose rape gangs, FGM, the Islamization of the U.K., etc., and still carry on with purely religious-cultural celebrations with his family?
Perhaps the answer is that their loyalty remains with the ummah, and that Rizvi would be on the outs with them if he actually supported doing something, besides mere criticism of Islam. One’s loyalties are not tested so much by what one says, but by what one does, or supports or opposes doing. The non-Muslims are tolerant and understanding, so Rizvi needn’t compromise for them. For his friends and family, yes, but not for the vast population of non-Muslims in the West who are not his family and friends. And so, despite being an atheist, Rizvi retains at least one aspect of being a Muslim besides mere ceremonial aspects: A loyalty to the Muslim ummah. Such a loyalty is unavoidably in competition with other loyalties.
Guy Forester says
Unfortunately, merely criticizing islam in many countries can prove fatal. I invite Mr. Rizvi to go to his native Pakistan and make the talk show rounds espousing a secular, humanistic islam. I would like to have him tell us about how it goes with meeting a bunch of his relatives and having this discussion with them. I would like to see how long it would take for someone to register a complaint accusing him of blasphemy in Pakistan. I suspect his own family would solve any political, theological, and cultural issues right there at dinner.
RodSerling says
The thing that ticks me off, on a gut level, about the smug Rizvi, is that he is benefiting tremendously from the relative safety and security of the West. But he views himself as some kind of hero.
We don’t need him. We were doing fine without him. If there had been sensible policies in place regarding Islamic immigration, we would not even be talking about Islam except in a few specialist departments in academia. The projects to reform Islam and (for others) to leave Islam should be carried out in Muslim majority countries. These nefarious and dangerous long-term projects should not be carried out on our soil, at our expense, and at risk to our people. But Rizvi and co want to use the West as a kind of safe playground to carry out their projects to convert Muslims or reform Islam. They think if we bring in more and more Muslims they (the ex-Muslims, secularists, moderate Muslims) can come to the rescue to convert them or reform their Islam. This is delusional.* Muslims are not going to leave Islam in masses or reform their Islam on a scale and within the short time frame required. Meanwhile the size of the Muslim population in the West grows rapidly. We need real practical solutions.
*It does, however, keep the ex-Muslims and “reformists” in business. By importing masses of Muslims into the West, they have a steady supply of people to be converted and religion to be reformed. And any white Westerner who tries to solve it is deemed “racist,” by the ex-Muslims and reformists who just happen to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
RodSerling says
edit: for “nefarious” I actually meant dubious.
Guy Forester says
My experience has been that there are muslims that would like to leave islam and convert to another religion or simply remain social or secular muslims. Unfortunately, for that to work we need to carefully select and carefully limit immigrants from muslim countries.
I could be done, but not easily. The current situation of bringing these people over wholesale is not working. Too many have no desire to assimilate, want privileges no one else gets, and the PC crowd fawns all over them. You and I pick up the tab and are pilloried if we dare speak up.
There are many people from all over the world that want to move to western countries, assimilate, and prosper along with the citizens of their adopted home. We should focus on those that really want to join us, not behead us or leech of us.
Lydia says
In a nutshell, it is the religion of islam that is the culprit. That is the problem.
It is an evil religion that calls for evil deeds…. period.
As for muslims, there is a spectrum. The ones that interpret the quran literally are the ones who turn out to be terrorists, an obvious problem and that is the seed of that false religion come to fruition. Then there are some muslims who are totally clueless about most of the quran. They are raised in it as a cultural upbringing but are clueless about its true nature. They live peacefully, but it’s not because they are ‘muslims.’ It’s because they are oblivious about islam. And then you have the spectrum inbetween. Then there are some of the ones who were clueless…. until they saw islam in action with isis, and they left islam and converted to Christianity and I heard of many people like this a few years ago.
I don’t put anyone in a box just because they are ‘muslim.’ But the real problem is the religion of islam. That is what is the cause of all the trouble. I see these people (all of them in fact, to varying degrees) as victims trapped in a false belief system, slaves to the devil, and they have been lied to and deceived and don’t know any better. I’m not saying they are ‘victims’ in a sense of innocence, but victims in the same sense as all of humanity is a victim of their sin nature and needs to be set free from being slaves to sin and false belief systems, and the only one who can set them free is the Savior Jesus. They are held hostage in an enemy camp and have been indoctrinated like cults do and they don’t know any different. Some see through it but others don’t.
As Christians, we pray for the lost, we love them and want to see them set free, rescued from darkness to light, and saved so they will enjoy the same blessings spiritually, the same love, peace, and joy as we do. We love and pray for our enemies, we forgive as Jesus forgave those crucifying Him. And, Jesus came to set the captives free!
( :
Arnold says
you cannot be an atheist and a muslim. that is the definition of insanity.
M says
These fuckers ripped the term atheist off me btw… its a very long story and yeah Dubai is involved
gravenimage says
I’m afraid that the term Atheist much predates you, M.
M says
Bastard. Thieves.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Most in the middle east see Mohammadism as an ethnicity. That explains his apparent contradiction.
RonaldB says
I’m going to take a different perspective. RodSerling has already made some excellent observations concerning the political and economic limitation on the effectiveness of supposed Muslims like Ali Rizvi and Muslim critics like Dawkins in neutralizing the malevolent effects of a large Muslim population.
RodSerling Comment 1
RodSerling Comment 2
Several comments have noted the fundamental incompatibility between being an atheist and being a Muslim. It’s quite literally a contradiction in terms.
There is an analogy between the claim to be an atheist Muslim, and consequently peaceful and safe, and the Amadiyyah Muslim sect. The Amadiyyahs claim to be Muslim, but strictly speaking, are not bound by the literal meaning of the Koran and the Hadith on physical jihad warfare. The reason they are not bound is that they have a separate prophet, whose interpretation of the Koran and traditions is, by definition, primal and unassailable for them. In other words, Amadiyya Islam is non-violent because its interpretation is revelation, rather than logical.
So, for the sake of argument, let us concede we don’t have to worry about Amadiyya or atheist Muslims, strapping on bombs or shooting up parties. I’ll discount the documented fact that the Amadiyya leader called for jihad against Israel in 1948, at the UN, in a more-Muslim-than-thou moment.
The question is, do we want even non-violent but observant Muslims, in our society? Keep in mind there is a big difference between having a few thousand Muslims, in which case they are quaint objects of curiosity, and many millions, in which case they can be, and through identity politics likely are, a potent political force, able to gain special privileges and deeply influence local, state, and federal government and official policy. An atheist Muslim is a mystery; he claims to observe cultural Islam, but how much of sharia law does that entail? Does he wish to institute, say, a ban on criticism of Muhammad, certainly a prominent feature of sharia law? Does he wish to supply halal meats in school cafeterias?
Robert Spencer has pointed out the most primary dangers in political influence by both atheist Muslims and outcast Muslim sects like the Amadiyya: they oppose effective immigration controls over Muslims, including an outright ban on non-diplomatic Muslim entry into the country, which ought to be on the table. They also oppose a realistic training on the nature of mainstream Islamic teachings to security agencies and schools. The Amadiyyas at least, claim to be the true Muslims, so they naturally claim that the mandate to civilization warfare is not Islamic, when in fact it’s an integral part of the overwhelming majority Muslim schools.
But most important, political viewpoints based on the Koran and thousands of years of Muslim jurisprudence and theoretical development and totally counter to the civilization and culture we now enjoy in the West. An Amadiyya Muslim, or even an atheist Muslim, is not simply your Episcopalian in a skullcap. A few of them: fine. Many millions of them: lots of political pressures to change our fundamental culture, law and practices.
In other words, diversity is weakness and unhappiness, and more Muslims, even if non-violent, is diversity in spades.
My take is, the Muslims that are already here and citizens, let them stay. The ones that are not citizens, let them go, and certainly, no more Muslims coming in. Do I distinguish between an “atheist” Muslim or an Amadiyya, and a more mainstream Muslim? Not really. The Amadiyya called for jihad against Israel in 1948, now call for non-violence and an end to Muslim hostility to Israel. What will their position be tomorrow? I don’t know. They are non-violent today. What will they be tomorrow? I don’t know. The most prominent Amadiyya, Abdus Salaam, was a Pakistani who helped begin the Pakistani nuclear program which resulted in the first Islamic nuclear weapon. With non-violent Muslims like that, who needs violent Muslims?
Guy Forester says
Thank you, that was a very enlightening post. After what happened in San Bernardino, it seems that even being born here, and hence a US Citizen is not necessarily protective.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Yes we do have to worry about them (atheist, Amadi, etc)! They all teach/tell their children that Mohammad was a really super guy and the ultimate example to follow. And therefore they propagate this cancer forward in time!!
I wish people would stop trying to bisect Mohammadism into good and bad halves. They themselves say that there is only one uhma.
Pam Minnick says
Rizvi says
“They were both conflating “Islam” the ideology and “Muslim” the identity. Islam is a religion; it’s a set of beliefs, a bunch of ideas in a book. It’s not human. Muslims are real, living, breathing people, and to me, there’s a big difference between criticizing ideas and demonizing human beings.”
Here is where he is wrong, Islam is not only religion, it’s also government/law, this is why there is Islamic law (Sharia law) this is why non Muslims and all women are not equal to Islamic men. When a Muslim kills non Muslims does he see that as demonizing human beings? Why do so many Muslims play the victim and defend Islam when there is a Islamic terrorist attack? He has even made Muslims out to be the victims. I believe he is a very devout Muslim, and doing what he can to spread Islam.
It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is obligatory and is known as Taqiyya (Islamic Deception). That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam’s commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying.
Have the renounced violence? says
I’m happy to treat Muslims as individuals, as Rizvi suggests, once they have proven to me that they have unequivocally and publicly renounced the violent verses in the Qur’an, the Hadiths or the violent example of Muhammed.
Those Muslims who haven’t are to be condemned and never trusted.
PRCS says
” once they have proven to me that they have unequivocally and publicly renounced the violent verses in the Qur’an, the Hadiths or the violent example of Muhammed”
Make that renounced, denounced, and rejected.
Of course, they can’t do that and still be true Muslims. Therein lies the issue. The problem.
JDow says
I have a basket of fine red apples except that I know some percentage of them are unfit for human consumption because of bug spraying at the wrong time.
Suppose that’s 1% bad. How hungry do you have to be to reach into that basket, pull out an apple, and start eating it? If 10% are bad would you simply pass up the basket? If it was 60% or 70% bad would you dive in and start eating?
If 1% of Muslims are actively bad and 10% have bugs inside, I mean support the active 1%, should we allow them into this country simply because they are Muslims? I think not. Should we ban them because they are Muslims? Well, I am not going to reach into that basket of apples and eat some at random. I propose treating Muslims the same until the ideology can be seriously modified through a heavy program of ridicule and criticism.
{^_^}
duh swami says
Warring with Allah and spreading mischief in the land has severe punishment…see Quran 5;33..Denying the existence of Allah is a qualifier,,,
Aussie Infidel says
As an atheist myself, I fail to see how anyone could be an “atheist Muslim”. That’s simply a contradiction. Probably, Rizvi means an atheist with a Muslim background. Although I now have no religious beliefs, I was brought up within the Christian faith, and understand that Judeo-Christian and Humanist values underpin western culture and our laws. But what values would anyone take from Islam? Islam has no universal golden rule, discriminates against non-Muslims, and its tenets are the antithesis of the principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Nevertheless, Rizvi is right that some atheists, particularly leftists, are apologists for Islam, mainly because they are ignorant of Islamic ideology, and supporting Islam is the policy of their party. I have also been the target of some of these useful idiots who have never studied Islam and simply rely on the dictates of their political masters or local imam. On the other hand, some people on the right of politics are critical of Muslims per se; but they are ignorant of how much religious indoctrination controls a person’s beliefs and attitudes, and how Islam in particular controls its followers through fear.
But Rizvi is wrong to blame all atheists for discriminating against Muslims. I have known many Muslims throughout my life, but I do not hold those views, and neither do many of my atheist friends. We all detest Islam, the ideology, but realise that not all Muslims, the people, are potential jihadis. If it were not for Islam’s apostasy law, many or most Muslims would leave the faith; but they are afraid of retribution from the fanatics and psychopaths who control Islam.
Rizvi claims that “all of us have the right to believe what we want, and we must respect that right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have to respect the beliefs themselves.” Under normal circumstances I would agree with him – that’s simply exercising our right of freedom of belief. However, Islam incites its followers to kill unbelievers, which in any western jurisdiction is surely a criminal act, and should disqualify Islam from any legitimacy whatsoever.
Islam has no place in a civilized society, and the only Muslims who should be allowed to immigrate to Western countries, should be ex-Muslims.
mortimer says
Rizvi ‘SUBMITS’ to Islam … that’s 99% of what is important to Muslims … Rizvi does NOT submit to ‘Allah’ who is fictitious in Rizvi’s mind.
As long as you submit to ISLAM (i.e. Sharia), Muslims generally leave you alone. What you think inside your head doesn’t bother them very much. They will say something like, ‘Poor Rizvi, he’s confused… but he doesn’t fight against Sharia or badmouth the prophet.’
PRCS says
Ultimately, Aussie, you are correct.
But, will PC ever allow that?
gfmucci says
He is just another deceptive Muslim deflecting the truth about Islamic ideology and those who proclaim allegiance to it: Muslims. If one claims himself “Muslim”, then he claims he adheres to some or all of its teachings and commands. Trouble is, we never know which ones he proclaims and which ones he ignores.
But central to Islam is the example of Muhammad, “the most perfect example of man.” Rape, incest, intimidation, murder, terror, conquest, supremacism, jihad were the core actions of his spread of Islam – the example all Muslims support, either inwardly or outwardly.
mortimer says
Rizvi ‘submits’ to Sharia, so he is a Muslim outwardly, but not in his heart.
dodo says
Telling the truth about Islam is not hate speech
mortimer says
dodo, that’s your kafir perspective. The perspective of Sharia law is that your criticism is VERBAL WARFARE that must be fought by all Muslims.
A verbal critic of Islam must be killed and no forgiveness of the blasphemer is possible. Does that explain the Islamic perspective to you?
In other words, there is no ‘PERMISSIBLE’ criticism of Islam, since Islam is sacrosanct, perfect and the Sunna of Mohammed is to murder critics.
PRCS says
Unfortunately, too many of our friends and neighbors disagree with you.
mortimer says
Rizvi uses a very clever ruse: ATHEIST MUSLIM.
In so saying, he tells Muslims that he will not criticize MOHAMMED, but he just doesn’t believe Allah exists.
This let’s Rizvi off the hook because Muslims LOVE MOHAMMED about ten times more than they love ALLAH. And Rizvi knows that.
Muslims will leave him alone as long as Rizvi doesn’t criticize MOHAMMED. Brilliant mind trick!
Canto28 says
He’s just another of what I call a Bullsh*t Artist. There are lots of these gurus, new age sages, mystics etc. about, some making a good living. They essentially offer people some new slant on difficult matters that many people would like to believe. People want to have reassuring, seemingly intellectual, positive beliefs and there’s money in this, a good living in this. They are usually sharp enough to say a number of true things, along with their fabrications, and that reassures. Don’t take this absurd guy seriously any more than you should take seriously Karen Armstrong, Kim Wilbur types, Indian gurus, etc. He’s probably laughing himself at the absurd gig he came up with: “Atheist Muslim.” A joke.
PRCS says
A fine term, of whom many meet the definition.
Frank Verderber says
Thank You Mr. Rizvi, for you philosophic view. How good to know that some Indo-Europeans use their wits rather than their emotion. Your approach is very holistic and very English in its tenor to quell any underlying anger. Canada has always been the open door for liberals and humanists – who obfuscate American policies and social order. You are just one more. If I took a straight Biblical view of your personal philosophy, I would say that you are insane, for in the Old Testament it states categorically; “The fool [madman / lunatic] says in his heart there is no God” [Ps.14:1. But I too am an educated man with a few credits in Platonic and Socratic thought. May I engage; you are arguing the socialist view that Muslims are people. Great way to distract form the reality. Are you sure that you are not part of the Muslim Brotherhood? Shall I argue your view in the context of Nazis, or the Pol Pot regime or Idi Amin? They were people too! It is not people who call themselves Muslims, or Arabs, or Egyptians or Iranians or even Turks the west cares about. Our concern lies with Islam. What exactly is Islam? It can not be a religion, because it is a selfish misogynistic ideology. Religion is about submission to a deity – offering up personal sacrifices, time, money, and goods – in order to find favor and absolution. Islam is not that! Islam is a political movement that uses religious verbiage to add the veneer of spirituality. Hitler did this with National Socialism, and Lenin with Communism. After all, every Muslim talks about the Nation of Islam, not the heaven of Islam! How is it that in Surah II, Mohammad expresses the need to care for one’s spouse even in divorce, so that his children are cared for – thus expressing the basic work of any man – to supply the needs for the weakest – the most vulnerable. Any Muslim on a military jihad will shave himself as if a new born so as to reflect to “The God” he is as pure as a new born baby, yet he will go out and blow himself up in a mall filled with children. Is he stating to “The God” that children are worthless? Palestinians hang their toddlers from buildings that they use as rocket launching pads, so as to dare the Israelis to bomb the buildings. These types of sacrifice and spiritual activities are military not religious. Islam is a political ideology and must be treated as a dangerous political ideology. Hamas is more honorable than the rest in Islam, since it fights for its political rights, not its cultural or religious rights. If Muslims wish to live in the world of camels, and tribal retribution, slavery, and bigamy, I say that is fine with me – but don’t look to do that here. This is the New World – not a medieval society of ignoramuses, that think they satisfy God’s directives to men by offering someone else’s head on a platter. The Incas and Aztecs did that and now they are no more. The same God who made me, made you. Rationale would argue we both have a right to exist in freedom and peace. Does any loud mouth imam in the entire world understand that? Politics Mr. Rizvi, is the topic for Islam – not socialism or religion.
Alexander Gofen says
An “atheist muslim” (properly quoted in order to not look as an oxymoron) however remains a bit real muslim practicing taqqia (deceit of infidels). For it is a deceit to distinguish islam from people adhering to islam (i.e. muslims). It is a deceit to make us believe as though it were our obligation to seek grades of shade in adherents of islam in a hope that some of them are “bad muslims” (muslims “lite”) thus good enough for the West. However the truth is that no kind of muslims belong to the West in the first place. The West’s collective national identity is Christian or Judeo-Christian, period.
Robert Brooks says
“An atheist Muslim,”? Any statement that begins with such a contradiction automatically dismisses itself. I’m sorry but this is bs.
AleX says
To me, ‘atheist muslim’ sounds like I would call someone an ‘orthodox non-believer’.
And try to look intellectual.
Con Law Prof says
The US Constitution’s treasons laws BAN ISLAM. Period. Why are we not enforcing OUR LAWS? it is treasonous to NOT ENFORCE IT!
Terry says
“I think all of us have the right to believe what we want, and we must respect that right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have to respect the beliefs themselves.”
Been trying to make that point to leftists and muslims for a decade, they’ll have none of it, instead they immediately go to all the stale labels of racist, bigot etc.
Might as well be talking to a stump.