Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Recommended Posts

Richard Dawkins’ anti-Islam/anti-Muslim propaganda exposed: The facts

Original Guest Post

by Jai Singh

There is currently increasing journalistic scrutiny of the atheist
British scientist Richard Dawkins and his ally Sam Harris’ statements
about Islam and Muslims. In December 2012, the Guardian published an excellent article
highlighting the acclaimed physicist Professor Peter Higgs’ accurate
observations about Dawkins’ pattern of behaviour when it comes to
religion in general; Professor Higgs (of “Higgs Boson particle” fame)
has forcefully criticised Dawkins. More recently, superb articles by Nathan Lean in Salon (focusing on Dawkins), Murtaza Hussain for Al Jazeera (focusing on Dawkins, Harris etc) and Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian (mentions Dawkins but focuses predominantly on Harris; also see here)
have received considerable publicity. Readers are strongly advised to
familiarise themselves with the information in all of these articles.

Before I address the issue of Richard Dawkins, it is worthwhile
highlighting some key information about his ally Sam Harris. As
mentioned in Glenn Greenwald’s extensively-researched Guardian
article, Harris is on record as a) claiming that fascists are “the
people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to
Europe”, and b) stating “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks
like he or she could conceivably be Muslim”. Furthermore, bear in mind
the following paragraph from a previous Guardian article
about Harris: “…..But it tips over into something much more sinister in
Harris’ latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically
unreformable because so many Muslims are “utterly deranged by their
religious faith”. In another passage Harris goes even further, and
reaches a disturbing conclusion that “some propositions are so dangerous
that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”.”

Richard Dawkins’ “atheist anti-religion” agenda has noticeably become
increasingly focused on Islam & Muslims; his online statements
(recently including his Twitter account )
have now become so extreme that a great deal of them are essentially
indistinguishable from the bigoted, ignorant nonsense pushed by the
English Defence League leadership and the main US-based anti-Muslim
propagandists such as Robert Spencer etc.

In fact, as Nathan Lean’s Salon article mentioned, the following very revealing information recently surfaced: It turns out that Dawkins has publicly admitted
that he hasn’t even read the Quran even though (in his own words) he
“often says Islam is the greatest force for evil today”. Mainstream
Islamic theology (including the associated impact on Muslim history) is
not based solely on the Quran, of course, but Dawkins’ admission is
indicative of a number of major problems on his part. So much for the
credibility of Richard Dawkins’ “scientific method” in this particular
subject. It goes without saying that this also raised questions about
exactly which dubious second-hand sources Dawkins has been getting his
information on Islam and Muslims from, if he hasn’t even taken the
normal professional academic steps of reading the primary sacred text of
the religion he has also described as “an unmitigated evil”. Not to mention the question of Dawkins’ real motivations for his current fixation with Islam and Muslims.

Well, it appears that some answers are available. It certainly
explains a great deal about Richard Dawkins’ behaviour. In the main part
of this article beneath the “Summary” section below, I have listed 54
anti-Islam/anti-Muslim statements posted by Richard Dawkins on the
discussion forum of one of his own websites. (The list of quotes also
includes embedded URL links directly to the original statements on
Dawkins’ website).

Summary of Richard Dawkins’ actions

1. There is a direct connection to Robert Spencer’s inner circle. As
confirmed by the URL link supplied by Richard Dawkins in quote #11,
Dawkins has definitely been using that cabal’s anti-Muslim propaganda as
a source of “information” for his own statements; Dawkins specifically
links to the “Islam-Watch” website, which is a viciously anti-Muslim
site in the same vein as JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna
(both of which were the most heavily cited sources in the terrorist
Anders Breivik’s manifesto). More pertinently, as confirmed by this affiliated webpage,
the core founders & members of that website include the
currently-unidentified individual who uses the online alias “Ali Sina”.
This is the same fake “atheist Iranian ex-Muslim” who is a senior board
member of “SIOA”/“SION”,
an extremely anti-Muslim organisation whose leadership is formally
allied with racist white supremacists & European neo-Nazis and has
even organised joint public demonstrations with them. “Ali Sina” himself
was also cited by Breivik in his manifesto.

Note that the SIOA/SION leadership inner circle includes: a) AFDI and JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer, an ordained Catholic deacon
who has been proven to have repeatedly made false statements about
Islam & Muslims and has publicly admitted that his actions are
heavily motivated by his (unilateral) agenda for the dominance of the
Catholic Church; b) AFDI and Atlas Shrugs’ Pamela Geller,
who is now on record as advocating what is effectively a “Final
Solution” targeting British Muslims, including mass-murder; c) the
English Defence League leadership; and d) David Yerushalmi,
the head of an organisation whose mission statement explicitly declares
that its members are “dedicated to the rejection of democracy” in the
United States. Furthermore, Yerushalmi believes that American women
shouldn’t even have the right to vote.

Extensive details on “Ali Sina” are available here.
Quite a few of the quotes in that article are horrifying. Bear in mind
that this is the person whose website Richard Dawkins has publicly cited
and promoted. “Ali Sina” is on record as making statements such as the

“Muhammad was not a prophet of God. He was an instrument

of Satan to divide mankind so we destroy each other. It is a demonic

plot to end humanity.”

“I don’t see Muslims as innocent people. They are all guilty as sin.

It is not necessary to be part of al Qaida to be guilty. If you are a

Muslim you agree with Muhammad and that is enough evidence against you.”

“Muslims, under the influence of Islam lose their humanity. They

become beasts. Once a person’s mind is overtaken by Islam, every trace

of humanity disappears from him. Islam reduces good humans into beasts.”

[Addressing all Muslims] “We will do everything to save you, to make

you see your folly, and to make you understand that you are victims of a

gigantic lie, so you leave this lie, stop hating mankind and plotting

for its destruction and it [sic] domination. But if all efforts fail and

you become a threat to our lives and the lives of our children, we must

amputate you. This will happen, not because I say so, but I say so

because this is human response. We humans are dictated by our survival

instinct. If you threaten me and my survival depends on killing you, I

must kill you.”

“Muslims are part of humanity, but they are the diseased limb of

mankind. We must strive to rescue them. We must do everything possible

to restore their health. That is the mission of FFI [“Faith Freedom

International”, “Ali Sina’s” primary website]. However, if a limb

becomes gangrenous; if it is infected by necrotizing fasciitis

(flesh-eating disease), that limb must be amputated.”

[Addressing all Muslims] “But you are diseased. You are infected by a

deadly cult that threatens our lives. Your humanity is destroyed. Like a

limb infected by flesh eating disease, you are now a threat to the rest

of mankind…..Islam is disease. What does moderate Muslim mean anyway?

Does it mean you are moderately diseased?”

“But there was another element in shaping his [Muhammad’s] character:

The influence of Rabbis. Islam and Judaism have a lot in common. They

have basically the same eschatology and very similar teachings…..These

are all secondary influences of Judaism on Islam. The main common

feature between these two faiths is their intolerance. This intolerance

in Judaic texts gave the narcissist Muhammad the power to do as he

pleased…..How could he get away with that? Why would people believed

[sic] in his unproven and often irrational claims? The answer to this

question is in Judaism. The Rabbis in Arabia had laid the psychological

foundations for Islam among the tolerant pagans…..The reasons Arabs fell

into his [Muhammad’s] trap was because of the groundwork laid by the

Rabbis in Arabia.”

“Muhammad copied his religion from what he learned from the Jews. The

similarity between Islamic thinking and Judaic thinking is not a


“By seeing these self-proclaimed moderate Muslims, I can understand

the anger that Jesus felt against those hypocrites whom he called

addressed, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will

spit you out of my mouth.”

“In Christianity, it wasn’t the religion that needed to be reformed but the church. What Jesus preached was good.”

“The image portrays the words of Jesus, “the truth will set you

free.” That is my motto…..After listening to this rabbi, I somehow felt

sympathy for Jesus. I can now see what kind of people he had to deal


2. After Nathan Lean and Glenn Greenwald published the aforementioned Salon and Guardian
articles, both “Ali Sina” and Robert Spencer rapidly wrote lengthy
articles on their respective websites defending Richard Dawkins and Sam
Harris. It would therefore be constructive for Richard Dawkins and Sam
Harris to publicly clarify if they welcome or reject “Ali Sina” &
Robert Spencer’s support. It would also be constructive for Dawkins and
Harris to publicly clarify the nature and extent of their involvement
with “Ali Sina” & Robert Spencer.

3. Richard Dawkins’ anti-Islam/anti-Muslim narrative (including the
stereotyped caricature and his own convoluted strawman arguments) is
essentially identical to the hatred-inciting, theologically-,
historically- & factually-distorted/falsified propaganda promoted by
Far-Right groups such as the English Defence League and especially the
owners of JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna. This is clearly not just a coincidence, considering Dawkins’ online sources of [mis]information.

4. Richard Dawkins is now on record as making a series of extremely
derogatory statements in which he bizarrely refers to Islam (a religious
belief system) as though it were a conscious, sentient entity (see #5,
#32, #36, #49). The nature of those statements suggests that Dawkins is
actually referring to Muslims. (Also see #7).

5. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly defending Sam
Harris, including Harris’ claims about Muslims and Islam (see #42, #43).

6. Richard Dawkins is now on record as enthusiastically praising the Dutch Far-Right politician Geert Wilders (see #50).

7. Richard Dawkins is now on record as publicly claiming that
“communities” has become code for “Muslims” (see #18) and that
“multiculturalism” in Europe is code for “Islam” (see #19).

8. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly praising &
defending Ayaan Hirsi Ali (see #20, #26, #50). Hirsi Ali has been proven
to have fabricated aspects of her background/experiences (as confirmed by the BBC). Hirsi Ali is also on record as
revealing the full scale of her horrific beliefs, including the fact
that she sympathises with Anders Breivik and blames so-called “advocates
of silence” for Breivik’s mass-murdering terrorist attack.

9. Richard Dawkins is now on record as repeatedly promoting the
Far-Right conspiracy theory that British police avoid prosecuting
Muslims due to fears of being labelled “racist” or “Islamophobic” (see
#1, #24, #28, #45). Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller’s closest
European allies, the English Defence League leadership, are amongst the
most vocal advocates of this ridiculous conspiracy theory.

10. Richard Dawkins is now on record as explicitly describing himself as “a cultural Christian” (see #54).

11. Richard Dawkins is now on record as proposing what is basically
an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy, specifically in terms of
Christians vs. Muslims (see here and here.
Also see #16). This raises questions about exactly how much support
Dawkins has secretly been giving to certain extremist anti-Muslim
individuals/groups, or at least how much he is personally aware that
these groups are explicitly recycling Dawkins’ own rhetoric when
demonising Islam & Muslims.

12. Richard Dawkins is now on record as exhibiting very disturbing attitudes towards the British Muslim Member of Parliament Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and the British Muslim Independent journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,
including repeatedly making highly offensive claims that they are
“tokens” with zero qualifications for their respective jobs and are in
positions of seniority/influence solely because they are “female, Muslim
and brown/non-white” (See #25, #29, #30, #31, #35, #53). Dawkins
clearly shares the EDL leadership’s noticeable hostility towards
Baroness Warsi in particular; furthermore, note Dawkins’ sneering “open
letter” to Baroness Warsi (see #29), and also note the fact that the EDL
leadership recently published a similar “open letter” to Baroness Warsi on their main website, written by an unidentified anonymous author.

13. Richard Dawkins has published a lengthy diatribe by Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller/EDL ally/SIOE co-founder Stephen Gash.

14. Richard Dawkins has enthusiastically republished a large number of viciously anti-Muslim comments originally posted on the discussion thread of a Telegraph
article written by Baroness Warsi. Dawkins claimed that the only reason
he was reproducing these comments on his own website was “because the Telegraph is apparently censoring them”.

15. Despite the claims of Richard Dawkins’ defenders that he is an
“equal opportunity offender” in terms of his criticisms of various
organised religions, the aforementioned 54 quotes speak for themselves
and Dawkins’ real pattern of behaviour is self-evident. Amongst other
things, it raises the question of whether Dawkins was already perfectly
aware that the anti-Islam/anti-Muslim propaganda he is basing his
statements on originates in members of Robert Spencer’s extremist inner
circle and their respective hate websites (which would have very nasty
implications about Dawkins himself), or whether Dawkins has been
astonishingly incompetent about researching his sources of

16. Further information on Richard Dawkins’ other activities targeting Islam & Muslims is available here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Examples of statements by Richard Dawkins:

#1: [Quoting: “No
I don’t think it was racist to feel that way. If you saw a European
mistreating his wife in public wouldn’t you feel the same? “
] “Of
course. In that case I might have called a policeman. If you see a
Muslim beating his wife, there would be little point in calling a
policeman because so many of the British police are terrified of being
accused of racism or ‘Islamophobia’.”

#2: “Religion poisons everything. But Islam has its own unmatched level of toxicity.”

#3: “Religion poisons everything, but Islam is in a toxic league of its own.”

“…..But let’s keep things in proportion. Christianity may be pretty
bad, but isn’t Islam in a league of its own when it comes to sheer
vicious nastiness?”

#5: [Quoting: “He blamed ‘radical stupid people who don't know what Islam is,’”]
“They are certainly stupid, but they know exactly what Islam is. Islam
is the religion that wins arguments by killing its opponents and crying
‘Islamophobia’ at anyone who objects.”

“This horrible film deserves to go viral. What a pathetic religion: how
ignominious to need such aggressively crazed defenders.”

“Muslims seem to suffer from an active HUNGER to be offended. If
there’s nothing obvious to be offended by, or ‘hurt’ by, they’ll go out
looking for something. Are there any other similar examples we could
think of, I wonder, not necessarily among religious groups?”

“Paula’s letter in today’s Independent (see above) will doubtless
provoke lots of fatuous bleats of “Oh but Islam is a peaceful

#9: [Quoting: “But it has nothing to do with Islam.”]
“Oh no? Then why do the perpetrators, and the mullahs and imams and
ayatollahs and ‘scholars’, continually SAY it has everything to do with
Islam? You may not think it has anything to do with Islam, but I prefer
to listen to what the people responsible actually say. I would also love
it if decent, ‘moderate’ Muslims would stand up and condemn the
barbarisms that are carried out, or threatened, in their name.”

#10: “What is there left to say about Sharia Law? Who will defend it? Who can find something, anything, good to say about Islam?”

#11: [Quoting: “needed to respect other religions”]
“That word ‘other’ worries me and so does ‘respect’. ‘Other’ than what?
What is the default religion which makes the word ‘other’ appropriate?
What is this ‘other’ religion, which is being invoked in this
high-handed, peremptory way. It isn’t hard to guess the answer. Islam.
Yet again, Islam, the religion of peace, the religion that imposes the
death penalty for apostasy, the religion whose legal arm treats women
officially as second class citizens, the religion that sentences women
to multiple lashes for the crime of being raped, the religion whose
‘scholars’ have been known to encourage women to suckle male colleagues
so that they can be deemed ‘family’ and hence allowed to work in the
same room; the religion that the rest of us are called upon to ‘respect’
for fear of being thought racist or ‘Islamophobic’. Respect? RESPECT?”

#12: “All three of the Abrahamic religions are deeply evil if they take their teachings seriously. Islam is the only one that does.”

#13: “Yes, Christians are much much better. Their sacred texts may be just as bad, but they don’t act on them.”

“Quite the contrary. I think the problem [with Islam] is with the
MAJORITY of Muslims, who either condone violence or fail to speak out
against it. I am now praising the MINORITY who have finally decided to
stand up for peace and nonviolence.”

#15: [Quoting: “Actually
I think linking to every video this bigot releases does look like an
endorsement, even if it's unintentional. Why not link to some news items
by some other right wing bigots the BNP or the EDL, they're always
banging on about Islam so it should qualify.”
] “I support Pat
[Condell]’s stance on Islam. It is NOT based on racism like that of the
BNP, and he is properly scathing about so-called ‘Islamophobia’.”

“After the last census, Christianity in Britain benefited, in terms of
political influence, from the approximately 70% who ticked the Christian
box, whether or not they were really believers. With the menacing rise
of Islam, some might even be tempted to tick the Christian box, for fear
of doing anything to boost the influence of the religion of “peace””.

#17: [Quoting: “What
sort of justice is this? My daughter has been beaten to death in the
name of justice,” Mosammet's father, Dorbesh Khan, 60, told the BBC.
] “What sort of justice? Islamic justice of course.”

“Just as ‘communities’ has become code for ‘Muslims’,
‘multiculturalism’ is code for a systematic policy of sucking up to
their often loathsome ‘community leaders’: imams, mullahs, ‘clerics’,
and the ill-named ‘scholars’.”

“Forgive me for not welcoming this judgment with unalloyed joy. If I
thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we
sure it is not pandering to ‘multiculturalism’, which in Europe is code
for Islam? And if you think Catholicism is evil . . .”

“I don’t think this is a matter for levity. Think of it as a foretaste
of more serious things to come. They’ve already hounded Ayaan Hirsi Ali
out of Holland and their confidence is growing with their population
numbers, encouraged by the craven accommodationist mentality of nice,
decent Europeans. This particular move to outlaw dogs will fail, but
Muslim numbers will continue to grow unless we can somehow break the
memetic link between generations: break the assumption that children
automatically adopt the religion of their parents.”

“I said that Islam is evil. I did NOT say Muslims are evil. Indeed,
most of the victims of Islam are Muslims. Especially female ones.”

“Whenever I read an article like this, I end up shaking my head in
bafflement. Why would anyone want to CONVERT to Islam? I can see why,
having been born into it, you might be reluctant to leave, perhaps when
you reflect on the penalty for doing to. But for a woman (especially a
woman) voluntarily to JOIN such a revolting and misogynistic institution
when she doesn’t have to always suggests to me massive stupidity. And
then I remember our own very intelligent Layla Nasreddin / Lisa Bauer
and retreat again to sheer, head-shaking bafflement.”

“Apologists for Islam would carry more conviction if so-called
‘community’ leaders would ever go to the police and report the culprits.
That would solve, at a stroke, the problem that has been exercising
posters here. ‘Community’ leaders are best placed to know what is going
on on their ‘communities’. Why don’t they report the perpetrators to the
police and have them jailed?”

“Presumably we shall hear all the usual accommodationist bleats about
“Nothing to do with Islam”, and “It’s cultural, not religious” and
“Islam doesn’t approve the practice”. Whether or not Islam approves the
practice depends – as with the death penalty for apostasy – on which
‘scholar’ you talk to. Islamic ‘scholar’? What a joke. What a sick,
oxymoronic joke. Islamic ‘scholar’!

It is of course true that not all Muslims mutilate their daughters, or
approve it. But I conjecture that it is true that virtually all, if not
literally all, the 24,000 girls referred to come from Muslim families.
And all, or virtually all those who wield the razor blade (or the broken
glass or whatever it is) are devout Muslims. And above all, the reason
the police turn a blind eye to this disgusting practice is that they
THINK it is sanctioned by Islam, or they think it is no business of
anybody outside the ‘community’, and they are TERRIFIED of being called
‘Islamophobic’ or racist.”

“Apologies if this has already been said here, but “Baroness” Warsi has
no sensible qualifications for high office whatever. She has never won
an election and never distinguished herself in any of the ways that
normally lead to a peerage. All she has achieved in life is to FAIL to
be elected a Member of Parliament, twice (on one occasion ignominiously
bucking the swing towards her party). She was, nevertheless, elevated to
the peerage and rather promptly put in the Cabinet and the Privy
Council. The only reasonable explanation for her rapid elevation is
tokenism. She is female, Muslim, and non-white – a bundle of three
tokens in one, and therefore a precious rarity in her party. You might
have suspected her lack of proper qualifications from the fatuous things
she says, of which her speech in Rome is a prime example.”

#26: [Quoting: “Muslim
extremists have called for Aan to be beheaded but fellow atheists have
rallied round, and urged him to stand by his convictions despite the
] “For one sadly short moment I thought the ‘but’ was
going to be followed by ‘moderate Muslims have rallied round . . .’ Once
again, where are the decent, moderate Muslims? Why do they not stand up
in outrage against their co-religionists? Maybe Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
right and “moderate Muslim” is something close to an oxymoron. How can
they not see that, if you need to kill to protect your faith, that is a
powerful indication that you have lost the argument? It is impossible to
exaggerate how deeply I despise them.”

“There are moves afoot to introduce sharia law into Britain, Canada and
various other countries. I hope it is not too “islamophobic” of me to
hope that the “interpretation” of sharia favoured by our local Muslim
“scholars” will be different from the “interpretation” favoured by
Iranian “scholars”. Oh but of course: “That’s not my kind of Islam.””

#28: [Quoting: “Richard,
I really dislike disagreeing with you. However, female genital
mutilation is not really based on Islam. My wife is from Indonesia and I
have asked around and none of them know of anyone who does that in
their country. From all that I have read and seen, it seems like it
predates Islam and is mostly found in Africa and to a lesser extent the
Middle East.”
] “Even if you are right (and I am not necessarily
conceding the point) that FGM itself is not based on Islam, I strongly
suspect that the British police turning a blind eye to it is very
strongly based on Islamophobophobia – the abject terror of being thought

#29: “Dear Lady Warsi

Is it true that the Islamic penalty for apostasy is death? Please answer
the question, yes or no. I have asked many leading Muslims, often in
public, and have yet to receive a straight answer. The best answer I
heard was from “Sir” Iqbal Sacranie, who said “Oh well, it is seldom

Will you please stand up in the House of Lords and publicly denounce the
very idea that, however seldom enforced, a religion has the right to
kill those who leave it? And will you stand up and agree that, since a
phobia is an irrational fear, “Islamophobic” is not an appropriate
description of anybody who objects to it. And will you stand up and
issue a public apology, on behalf of your gentle, peaceful religion, to
Salman Rushdie? And to Theo van Gogh? And to all the women and girls who
have been genitally mutilated? And to . . . I’m sure you know the list
better than I do.

Richard Dawkins”

#30: [Quoting: “Blimey
Richard! This really has got up your nose, hasn't it? Your comments are
usually a great deal more measured. It's not exactly uncommon for a
Minister to “rise without trace”. I think we can all agree that our
political system is “sub-optimal” to put it politely. Tokensim is one
possibility (though if the Tories were really just after the muslim vote
its interesting that they opted for a female muslim token).”
] “I
didn’t mean to suggest that the Tories were after the Muslim vote. I
think they know that is a lost cause. I suspect that they were trying to
live down their reputation as the nasty party, the party of racists,
the party of sexists, the Church of England at prayer. More
particularly, the ceaseless propaganda campaign against “Islamophobia”
corrupts them just as it corrupts so many others. I suspect that the
Tory leadership saw an opportunity to kill two, or possibly three, birds
with one stone, by elevating this woman to the House of Lords and
putting her in the Cabinet.

I repeat, her [baroness Sayeeda Warsi’s] qualifications for such a
meteoric rise, as the youngest member of the House of Lords, are
tantamount to zero. As far as I can see, her only distinction is to have
stood for election to the House of Commons and lost. That’s it.

Apart, of course, from being female, Muslim, and brown. Like I said, killing three birds with one stone.”

“Baroness Warsi has never been elected to Parliament. What are her
qualifications to be in the Cabinet? Does anyone seriously think she
would be in the Cabinet, or in the House of Lords, if she was not a
Muslim woman? Is her elevation to high office (a meteoric rise, for she
is the youngest member of the House of Lords) any more than a deplorable
example of tokenism?”

“I too heard Paul Foot speak at the Oxford Union, and he was a
mesmerising orator, even as an undergraduate. Once again, Christopher
Hitchens nails it. It is the nauseating presumption of Islam that
marks it out for special contempt. I remain baffled at the number of
otherwise decent people who can be seduced by such an unappealing
religion. I suppose it must be childhood indoctrination, but it is still
hard to credit. If you imagine setting up an experiment to see how far
you could go with childhood indoctrination – a challenge to see just how
nasty a belief system you could instil into a human mind if you catch
it early enough – it is hard to imagine succeeding with a belief system
half as nasty as Islam. And yet succeed they do.”

“Orthodox political opinion would have it that the great majority of
Muslims are good people, and there is just a small minority of
extremists who give the religion a bad name. Poll evidence has long made
me sceptical. Now – it is perhaps a minor point, but could it be
telling? – Salman Taseer is murdered by one of his own bodyguard. If
‘moderate’ Muslims are the great majority that we are asked to credit,
wouldn’t you think it should have been easy enough to find enough
‘moderate’ Muslims, in the entire state of Pakistan, to form the
bodyguard of a prominent politician? Are ‘moderate’ Muslims so thin on
the ground?”

“It is almost a cliché that people of student age often experiment with
a variety of belief systems, which they subsequently, and usually quite
rapidly, give up. These young people have voluntarily adopted a belief
system which has the unique distinction of prescribing execution as the
official penalty for leaving it. I have enormous sympathy for those
people unfortunate enough to be born into Islam. It is hard to muster
much sympathy for those idiotic enough to convert to it.”

[Quoting: “Why do any media outlets keep repeatedly inviting her
[Yasmin Alibhai-Brown] (excluding more capable, intelligent, qualified
guests) as if she is some kind of authority or expert on anything at
all?”] “Do you really need to ask that question? Media people are
petrified of being thought racist, Islamophobic or sexist. The
temptation to kill three birds with one stone must be irresistible.”

#36: [Quoting: “I'm
surprised nobody has acknowledged the elephant in the room -- namely,
multicultural appeasement of Islam. The fact that (a) the paper was
accepted, and (b) it took only five days to get accepted, suggests that
there's something funny going on here. Could it be that the referee of
the paper was a subscriber to the popular opinion in Britain that
anything associated with Muslims short of murder in broad daylight is
somehow praiseworthy and something to be encouraged?”
] “Yes, I’m sorry to say that is all too plausible. Perhaps the Editor decided it would be “Islamophobic” to reject it.”

#37: [Quoting: “I seem to remember a very bright young muslim lad”] You mean a bright young child of muslim parents.

“Oh, small as it is, this is the most heartening news I have heard for a
long time. What can we do to help these excellent young Pakistanis,
without endangering them? If, by any chance, any of them reads this web
site, please get in touch to let us know how we might help. If anybody
here has friends in Pakistan, or elsewhere afflicted by the ‘religion of
peace’ (it isn’t even funny any more, is it?), or facebook friends,
please encourage them to join and support these brave young people.”

#39: [Quoting: “The obvious question is: who cares, are we saying when it was a catholic school it was ok and a Muslim school is worse.”] “Yes. It is worse. MUCH worse”

#40: [Quoting:
“I was even accused of having converted and married into another
religion. But I wasn't worried as I'm a true Muslim," says the feisty
young woman.”
] If only she were a bit more feisty she would cease to
be a Muslim altogether – except that would make her an apostate, for
which the Religion of Peace demands stoning. Indeed, you’ll probably
find she’d be sentenced to 99 lashes just for the crime of being

#41: [Quoting: “Disgusting
and hideous as this practice is, I think the article makes it quite
clear that it's not limited to any one religion or community. It's
common to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, yezidis and many others.
”] I just did a rough count (I may have missed one or two) of the named victims Robert Fisk mentioned. As follows:

Muslim 52

Hindu 3

Sikh 1

Christian 0

But of course, Islam is the religion of peace. To suggest otherwise would be racist Islamophobia.”


“Whatever else you may say about Sam Harris’s article quoted above, and
whether or not he is right about the NY Masjid, the following two
paragraphs, about Islam more generally, seem to me well worth repeating.


“The first thing that all honest students of
Islam must admit is that it is not absolutely clear where members of al
Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, and other Muslim
terrorist groups have misconstrued their religious obligations. If they
are “extremists” who have deformed an ancient faith into a death cult,
they haven’t deformed it by much. When one reads the Koran and the
hadith, and consults the opinions of Muslim jurists over the centuries,
one discovers that killing apostates, treating women like livestock, and
waging jihad—not merely as an inner, spiritual struggle but as holy war
against infidels—are practices that are central to the faith. Granted,
one path out of this madness might be for mainstream Muslims to simply
pretend that this isn’t so—and by this pretense persuade the next
generation that the “true” Islam is peaceful, tolerant of difference,
egalitarian, and fully compatible with a global civil society. But the
holy books remain forever to be consulted, and no one will dare to edit
them. Consequently, the most barbarous and divisive passages in these
texts will remain forever open to being given their most plausible

Thus, when Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they
find them, until Islam reigns supreme (2:191-193; 4:76; 8:39; 9:123;
47:4; 66:9)—only to emphasize that such violent conquest is obligatory,
as unpleasant as that might seem (2:216), and that death in jihad is
actually the best thing that can happen to a person, given the rewards
that martyrs receive in Paradise (3:140-171; 4:74; 47:5-6)—He means just
that. And, being the creator of the universe, his words were meant to
guide Muslims for all time. Yes, it is true that the Old Testament
contains even greater barbarism—but there are obvious historical and
theological reasons why it inspires far less Jewish and Christian
violence today. Anyone who elides these distinctions, or who
acknowledges the problem of jihad and Muslim terrorism only to swiftly
mention the Crusades, israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the Tamil
Tigers, and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma, is simply
not thinking honestly about the problem of Islam.”

#43: [Quoting: “I
am newish here (and not planning to stay). Could someone please just
set my mind at rest by confirming whether or not this poster is the real
Prof. Dawkins. I really, really hope not. I used to have respect for
him and I supposed that, being a busy man, he would never have time to
come here, and therefore could not be held responsible for all the
bigotry, against believers in general, and Muslims in particular, which
gets aired here in the guise of Reason. If this really is him, then I
guess he can't disassociate himself from it and from the charge of
providing a platform for bigots and haters. If it's really you, Prof.
Dawkins, you should be ashamed of yourself.
” Quoting his own comment: “Whatever
else you may say about Sam Harris's article quoted above, and whether
or not he is right about the NY Masjid, the following two paragraphs,
about Islam more generally, seem to me well worth repeating. Richard”
“You mean the Koran and the Hadith don’t say what Sam claims they say?
I’m delighted to hear that, but can you substantiate it? I do hope you
can, then we can all sleep easier. If, on the other hand, Sam is
summarising Islamic scriptures accurately, why should I be ashamed of
myself for simply quoting Sam’s accurate summary?”

“Some critics have suggested that Paula should fairly have quoted, in
equal measure, from Islamic scriptures. Since she was responding to a
specific question set by the Washington Post about ‘religious and
moral considerations’, it was appropriate for her to concentrate on the
religions that dominate the readership of the Washington Post,
namely Christianity and Judaism. However, it would be an interesting
exercise for one of our Koranically-informed readers to undertake a
matching article drawing on the scriptures of the ‘Religion of Peace’.
Which of the ‘great’ monotheistic faiths will win First Prize for
bloodthirsty nastiness and ethnic cleansing zeal?”

“I have it on the authority of a London schools inspector that the
reason the police do not prosecute is that they are afraid of being
accused of racism or “Islamophobia.” In the words of the police officer
quoted in this article, they “don’t want to alienate communities.” You
might as well refrain from prosecuting child rapists because you don’t
want to alienate the pedophile community. If arresting these vicious
hags really were “islamophobic” (or course it isn’t), I’d be proud to be
called Islamophobic.”

“Most Muslims don’t do honour killings, but the vast majority of honour
killings are done by Muslims, loyally practising their faith and
following what their religion has taught them is the right and proper
thing to do.”

#47: [Quoting: “Given
what the Palestinians have been through in the last 40 years, expecting
polite grace & dignity at all times might be a little optimistic.”
] “And you think these people were Palestinians? Or were they just Muslims?”

“Islam is surely the greatest man-made evil in the world today, and I
think I’d feel a tiny bit more secure against the menacing threat of
Islam and Islamic faith schools, under the Tories than under Labour”.

#49: [Quoting Steve Zara: “Now,
it seems like the Cartoons were designed to be quite offensive. That
was the artistic intention. Putting aside any judgement on that,
wouldn't it have been more interesting if the cartoons had been designed
to be hardly offensive at all, in the style of the UK atheist bus
campaign. It would have make those claiming insult and offence look very
silly indeed.”
] “..…The Westergaard cartoon implies nothing more
offensive than that Islam is a violent religion, a fact that was amply
demonstrated by the response to it. Part of the problem, as many here
have pointed out, is that Islam expects special treatment: expects to be
allowed to take disproportionate offence, far beyond that assumed by
anybody else on Earth.”

“I have just watched Fitna. I don’t know whether it is the original
version, but it is the one linked by Jerry Coyne. Maybe Geert Wilders
has done or said other things that justify epithets such as
‘disgusting’, or ‘racist’. But as far as this film is concerned, I can
see nothing in it to substantiate such extreme vilification. There is
much that is disgusting in the film, but it is all contained in the
quotations, which I presume to be accurate, from the Koran and from
various Muslim preachers and orators, and the clips of atrocities such
as beheadings and public executions. At least as far as Fitna is
concerned, to call Wilders ‘disgusting’ is surely no more sensible than
shooting the messenger. If it is complained that these disgusting
Koranic verses, or these disgusting Muslim speeches, or the more than
disgusting Muslim executions, are ‘taken out of context’, I should like
to be told what the proper context would look like, and how it could
possibly make any difference.

To repeat, Wilders may have said and done other things of which I am
unaware, which deserve condemnation, but I can see nothing reprehensible
in his making of Fitna, and certainly nothing for which he should go on
trial. Like the film of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, the style of
Fitna is restrained, the music, by Tchaikowski and Grieg, is
excellently chosen and contributes to the restrained atmosphere of the
film. The horrendous execution scenes are faded out before the coup-de-grace; all the stridency, and almost the only expressions of opinion, come from Muslims, not from Wilders.

Why is this man on trial, unless it is, yet again, pandering to the
ludicrous convention that religious opinion must not be ‘offended’?
Geert Wilders, if it should turn out that you are a racist or a
gratuitous stirrer and provocateur I withdraw my respect, but on
the strength of Fitna alone I salute you as a man of courage, who has
the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy.”

[sarcasm] “How dare you interfere with their culture? Obviously these
people should be allowed to follow their own customs, without
interference from Islamophobic imperialists. In any case, I expect only
SOME women will be stoned for the crime of being raped. And even they
will almost certainly deserve it, as they surely wouldn’t have been
raped if they hadn’t shown an inch of bare wrist or ankle, or if they
hadn’t left the house unaccompanied by a male relative.”

“I am not in favour of banning the burqa, because I am not in favour
banning any style of clothing. But I think Pat is right to compare the
burqa with a Ku Klux Klan hood or a swastika armband (which shouldn’t be
banned either). I think he is right to speak of Islamic fascism, I
think he is right to condemn the use of the word ‘Islamophobia’….I think
Islam is probably the greatest of all man-made evils in the world
today. It takes courage to speak out against it. Pat has that courage.
He will be making enough enemies among the Islamofascists. I prefer not
to encourage them by attacking him from the other side. “

“For a while now I have carried on a sporadic, and more-or-less
friendly, correspondence with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I continually try to
provoke her with the horrors of Islam, in order to persuade her to
leave it. She roundly condemns the bad bits of Islam, but I wonder where
there are any good bits for her to retreat to. I am becoming
increasingly curious. Are there ANY good things about Islam at all?”

“I find it hard not to resent the implication of Comment 36645 by oao. I
obviously refer to Christianity, by default, more than to Judaism (or
Islam) because I am a cultural Christian, writing in a cultural
Christian country (Britain) with an eye to a larger audience in another
(more than merely cultural) Christian country (USA).”


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Dawkins As Crusader: “Islam, One of the Great Evils” Line Gets Standing Ovation in “Christian Town”



Posted on 06 November 2012 by Emperor





Richard Dawkins, Pope of New Atheism and Crusader against the “unmitigated evil of Islam” showed up in the “tradionally Christian community of Stornoway” and proceeded to bash Islam.

We are told that he was sure to make the distinction that the “vast

majority of Muslims” are not evil, just their “religion.” Would he say

the same about Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc.? Of course not, because

in his view it is Islam that is unique amongst world religions in its “evilness.”

What ramifications does this have for treating the “other”? If you

view “their” religion as “unmitigated evil” or as one of the “greatest

evils on earth,” clearly its practitioners are going to be viewed

suspiciously, possibly profiled as “evil-doers.”

Dawkins has long drank from the loony kool aid of Islamophobia. His

remarks trespass the bounds of reasoned criticism of Islam into bigotry

against Muslims, a fact which mealy-mouthed caveats and disclaimers will

not dispel.


‘There’s no God and Islam is evil’ speech earns Richard Dawkins standing ovation

Renowned atheist Professor Richard Dawkins received a surprise

standing ovation in the traditionally Christian community of Stornoway

last night, following a two-hour speech in which he said there was

probably no God.

The 71-year-old described Islam as “one of the great evils of the

world” in his lecture, The God Delusion, as part of a rare visit to the

Western Isles.


The talk delivered on Lewis during the Hebrides Book

Festival proved a major hit among the 220-strong crowd. There was a

waiting list of 60 people for tickets, after the event sold out within

40 minutes.

Members of the audience cheered loudly as Prof Dawkins used

the appearance to attack Islam, while stressing that the “vast majority

 Muslims” were not evil, only their religion was.

Prof Dawkins said: “We are terrified of being called ‘Islamophobic’.

It is a disgrace a religion prescribes death for leaving it. The vast

majority of Muslims would not dream of doing that, but they are taught

it in their madrassas… and it only takes a minority to put that into

practice. And, as 
we have seen, terrible things happen.”


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Anti-Muslim Rant from Dawkins


Posted on 15 November 2011 by Amago



Dawkins is compiling a long list of loony comments, why do people
even think he makes sense when he speaks about religion anymore:

May of 2011: Islam is an “unmitigated evil”?

Richard Dawkins
, well known biologist and pop-atheist-guru (add goofball) recently brought up the 
 of whether or not atheists should support Christian missions in Africa. (hat tip: Rob)

He believes the answer is “still no,” (he doesn’t say why) but since

Islam according to him is an “unmitigated evil” and atheism is not going

to be making any inroads into Africa anytime soon it is a question

worth “raising.”

July of 2011:
Here’s the comment he left on a thread that discussed sexism. It isn’t
cute, reasoned critique of religion anymore, just plain vile:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals

mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet

again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the

house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you,

and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining,

will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put

up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do

you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her

back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He

invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of

course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.


Dawkins is at again. This time he cannot understand why young, white
British women are converting to Islam, so the urge to comment on the
article published in The Independent, “Women & Islam: The rise and rise of the convert”, was hard to resist:

“Whenever I read an article like this, I end up shaking

my head in bafflement. Why would anyone want to CONVERT to Islam? I can

see why, having been born into it, you might be reluctant to leave,

perhaps when you reflect on the penalty for doing to. But for a woman

(especially a woman) voluntarily to JOIN such a revolting and

misogynistic institution when she doesn’t have to always suggests to me

massive stupidity.”

In Dawkins’ asinine mind, he wonders why would anyone, especially
women, join this “revolting and misogynistic institution.” Due to his
lack of in depth research regarding women and Islam, it suggest to me
massive stupidity on his end. Due to this orientalist outlook on Islam
and it’s treatment of women as only being inclusive to the religion, you
are moving up in ranks for your anti-Islamic rhetoric.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Dawkins: Trying to Use Muslim Women as Foot Soldiers in his Crusade against Religion


Posted on 13 July 2011 by Garibaldi




Richard Dawkins
has been an “asshat” for quite a while now. His anti-Muslim, sexist,
xenophobic statements have been exposed on our site before.

Below, Fatemeh Fakhraie dissects his most recent inane and despicable comments.

Obligatory Richard Dawkins Post

by Fatemeh Fakhraie (Muslimah Media Watch)

So Richard Dawkins is an asshat. Anyone surprised?

Here’s the comment he left on a thread that discussed sexism:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals

mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet

again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the

house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you,

and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining,

will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put

up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do

you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her

back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He

invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of

course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.


And here’s a brief roundup of what people are saying about it.

The Atlantic Wire:

Several comments, including Watson’s own, hit on exactly

what the fight’s about. Dawkins has every right to dismiss Watson’s

story and to argue that she was not in a high risk situation. But his

attempt to prove how insignificant Watson’s story was by comparing it

with the much worse scenario of a Muslim woman’s daily life hurts his

argument. The fact that something worse is going on somewhere else does

not diminish whatever may be happening here. Also, as Watson points out,

Dawkins is admired widely for work criticizing creationism and

denouncing the use of religion as an excuse for repressing women in

particular. To defend only some women from misogyny and not all, she and

others argue, is hypocrtical. (sic)


Again, he implies that “Muslim women” and “American

women” are mutually exclusive groups; again, he implies that American

women do not “suffer physically from misogyny,” nor are their lives

“substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny.”

What Tami Said:

High-profile and influential men, like Dawkins, who use

their status to minimize sexism in the West, deny the lived experiences

of women, and advance the stupid thinking that all Western women are

both white and privileged, poison a well already rank with gender bias.

Men like Dawkins who sneer at Western misogyny make Western women’s

lives more difficult, including women like Watson who are atheists. So,

why should Watson and other women continue to hand Dawkins their money

and support, and prop up his influence, when he thinks they’re all a

bunch of whiny bitches who should be satisfied getting sexually harassed

because somewhere (in those bad, brown, Muslim countries) a woman has

it worse?

Lots of people have said lots of things about this, rightfully
calling out Dawkins’ male privilege and pointing out that the “there are
bigger problems” argument is derailing and silencing.

But very few of these posts have touched on Dawkins’ use of Muslim women specifically. And that’s where we come in.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and as an atheist, he believes that
organized religion is harmful for women. There are plenty of religious
and non-religious thinkers who can level-headedly make the case that
organized religions use rooted patriarchal norms to oppress women and
often works against their own ideals, but Dawkins is not one of those
people. Dawkins uses the stereotype of the oppressed Muslim woman and gives little regard to how his politicized views are received by Muslim women.

So no one should be surprised at his comment above.

But that’s doesn’t make it okay. Dawkins’ comment trades in
stereotypes about Muslim women “over there.” Does female genital
mutilation happen? Yes. Are women not allowed to drive cars in Saudi
Arabia? Yes. Is stoning a thing? Yes. But is Dawkins’ use of these
acceptable? No.

It’s unacceptable for Dawkins to make sweeping statements like this
because he attaches loaded terms like “female genital mutilation” and
“stoning” to a huge, worldwide term like “Muslim women,” and
attaches these things to Islam itself, ignoring outside cultural,
economic, and social influences. Making blanket statements about FGM and
stoning and driving attaches these to all of us, and contributes to the
Oppressed Muslim Women stereotype. And you know what that stereotype
has done to help us? Nothing.

It’s also just as silencing to female Muslim activists “over there”
who are dealing with these issues, and other important ones, such as
campaigning for the right to vote, pass their citizenship to their
children, or keep custody of their children after divorce. Dawkins is
injecting Muslim women “over there” into an issue that concerns us as
well (sexual harassment and sexism in belief systems), but uses us to
derail this issue.

And what is Dawkins doing to actually help the Muslim women he claims
are “mutilated with a razor blade,” and “not allowed to drive a
car,” and “stoned to death”?


So kindly shut the f**k up, Richard Dawkins, and stop using us as
foot soldiers in your crusade against organized religion. We’ll be fine
without you.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Dawkins: “Islam” is an “Unmitigated Evil”



Posted on 11 May 2011 by Garibaldi





Richard Dawkins, well known biologist and pop-atheist-guru (add goofball) recently brought up the question of whether or not atheists should support Christian missions in Africa. (hat tip: Rob)

He believes the answer is “still no,” (he doesn’t say why) but since

Islam according to him is an “unmitigated evil” and atheism is not going

to be making any inroads into Africa anytime soon it is a question

worth “raising.”

His logic is based on a crudely partitioned breakdown of religious affiliation in Africa designed by a Christian site:

Africa-Islam-Christian.jpg?resize=279%2C(Isn’t Dawkins supposed to question these sorts of things?)

Dawkins also believes ‘supporting missions’ may be justified on the

basis that ‘the enemy of our enemy is our friend.’ That’s the extent of

profundity provided by Dawkins! Such crass and cynical sentiments expose

the bankruptcy of ideas and strategy in the leadership of the so-called

New Atheists.

The statement is similar to “exposed as a fraud” Ayaan H. Ali’s

call for Christian missionaries to evangelize Muslims. Such a call is

really just a variation on the well worn Crusader-esque theme best

expressed by the likes of Anne Coulter, “We should

invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to

Christianity.” (Or the recent statement by Christian Evangelical Bryan Fischer, “Muslims can either convert, or die”).

Don’t you love how some of these

loony-out-for-a-buck-and-some-notoriety atheists are so quick to

compromise their principles and sit at the table with the most hardcore

Bible Thumpers out there? Does anyone think George Carlin would stand for that? Or Tariq Ali? Or As’ad Abu Khalil? Or Cenk Uygur? It just goes to show you that where you are born, your culture and history do have

an impact on the decisions and positions you take, no matter how much

you claim to be “objective” and motivated by “reason,” and the

“scientific method.”

As for his comments that it is a “given” that Islam is “an

unmitigated evil in the world today”…wow. First of all, what does that

mean about the practitioners of Islam? Does it mean that they are all or

mostly or significantly practitioners of “evil?” Because that is the

import of Dawkins’ statement, I mean who else puts into reality what

Islam is other then the followers of Islam?

Secondly, is anyone else taken aback by the quasi metaphysical

language used here by Dawkins? “Unmitigated evil,” is the type of phrase

one would expect in the sermon of a Puritan minister or perhaps as one

commenter on Dawkins site asks,

Is the Professor now auditioning for a guest shot on

Pamela Geller’s website for the barking mad and openly hostile? Very

few things in this world are ‘unmitigated evils’: of all the things

that might be unmitigated evils, I can absolutely guarantee that a

major world religion practiced in a thousand different ways in a

thousand different social and cultural contexts is not one of them. The

chances of no good at all coming out of such a diverse multiplicity of

contexts and forms of practice (that is, of any ‘evil’ not being

mitigated) are almost zero. —

Thirdly, piggy-backing off of the “multiplicity” mentioned by the commenter, is Dawkins totally oblivious to the Arab Spring for instance? You know that thing sweeping the Middle East for the past 5 1/2 months, that many, including Dawkins’ friend Christopher Hitchens thought would fail or sizzle out?

Is it “unmitigated evil” when protesters in Tahrir Square mobilized

in the hundreds of thousands, inspired by and chanting the Quranic

verse, “God does not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves?”

Was it “unmitigated evil” when they withstood the worst kinds of state

violence and barbarity in prayer together, shoulder to shoulder? Was it

“unmitigated evil” when Christians and Muslims united to protect each


Dawkins is out of touch with current events, and lets just say he won’t be playing in any

any time soon. The man’s field is Biology, he doesn’t know much about

anthropology, sociology, history, comparative religions, or philosophy,

that is why he and his buddy Sam Harris get their arse handed to them by real intellectuals such as Scott Atran and Robert Pape.

Maybe it is time for Dawkins to spend a little more time humbly

learning about Islam and Muslims, engaging with critical intellectuals

instead of rabid Islamophobes and probably dissecting a frog or two in

the lab he’s been neglecting while pontificating on matters he has no

grasp over.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys are the Abu Jahal & Abu Lahab of the 21st century.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have heard of Richard Dawkins. He speaks out against all religion. His mind is made up so all we can do is pray and point out holes in his rants. God is merciful and just. I leave Dawkins fate to him.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By russell
      Hi All
      One thing I’ve come across on this forum a number of times is the idea that I can’t question certain ideas, that you will be offended if I do so, and we should just steer away from those topics.  Is that really how you believe rational dialog should be conducted?
      I hold none of my ideas to that standard.  If you want to run down or rationally complain about anything I say please go ahead.  Question anything I say, question my lifestyle choices, my family values and my ideas on evidence, none of it is off limits and nothing you ask will offend me.  Not so it seems with Muslims.
      I’ve suggested a couple of times here that Muhammad was, at most, just a man and people took great offence that I could even think that.  “I love him so you shouldn’t suggest such a thing” was basically one answer to me on that comment.  Another argument was that you would not even discuss anything with me if I didn’t accept up front that Muhammad was more than a man.  The idea that he was more than just a man is incompatible with atheism of course but that was ignored at the time.
      Another idea I’ve expressed here a number of times that seems to cause problems is the church of Mickey Mouse.  I use that one to try to explain what an atheist sees when they walk down the street and look at all these buildings with symbols on them, crosses, moons and stars etc.  But think about it, given my view on god (I’ve already said I’m an atheist so this is no secret) how else should I see such symbols and the people who revere and worship them if atheism is the truth?
      Now don’t get me wrong here, it’s the ideas I’m discussing, it’s the ideas I’m complaining about.  I understand that people come to these ideas for many reasons and that many of the people who hold them are intelligent rational people, that’s not at question here, but I do think we need to rationally consider the ideas themselves.  That Muhammad was just a man or that he may even be an invention are ideas which we should be able to discuss. Now this is the crucial point here if these ideas hold water you should be able to defend them and not have to pull the “you can’t question that idea” card.  Rationally that statement is an admission of the weakness of your position.  If you are incapable of defending a position maybe you should not hold it as true.
      So what do you think, should rational enquiry be open to discuss any idea or are you really unwilling to truly examine the belief system that you hold to and if so why?  Does insecurity pay a part in that reluctance?
    • By Aysha27
      Dear all,
      Hello and As-salamu-alaikum-wa-rahmatullah.

      I am afraid of an issue called “Atheism”. I think everybody is surrounded with a different religion. And every religion purifies human’s nature. Though human nature is really so mysterious! If so why some of the people say there is no god? It’s a matter of sorrow that many of them are famous to their work in the world! In my country (sorry to say it is Bangladesh) recently an American atheist blogger, named Avijit Roy who spoke out against religious extremism and intolerance has been hacked to death. So my question is- what about the punishment of an atheist and is it halal to hack him cruelly…? What is the declaration of Qur’an regarding the issue…? :cry:
    • By Absolute truth
      This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah..
      Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!!
      You need to educate yourself on biology...

      Wait !


      Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world.
      But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!
    • By Saracen21stC
         Richard Dawkins' latest anti-Muslim Twitter spat lays bare his hypocrisy
                          The celebrity atheist's Twitter rant against journalist Mehdi Hasan shows he's a believer too – in his own mythology

                                              Richard Dawkins has
      accused Mehdi Hasan of not being a serious journalist for his belief
      that Islam's prophet Muhammad was carried to heaven on a winged horse.
      Photograph: Murdo Macleod

          Richard Dawkins and Twitter make one of the world's great
      pairings, like face and custard pie. But whereas more accomplished
      clowns ram custard pies into the faces of their enemies, Dawkins'
      technique is to ram his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly. I
      suppose it saves time and it's a lot of fun to watch. On Sunday
      afternoon he was at it again, wondering why the New Statesman employs an imaginative and believing Muslim:

      "Mehdi Hasan
      admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And
      New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."
      this is only half the fun. The real comedy comes when he lifts his face
      from the pie, dripping scorn and custard, to glare at the audience who
      can't see how very rational he is. Because there are some people who
      don't understand that everything Dawkins says illuminates the beauty of
      For instance, Tom Watson, the MP who pursued Murdoch, tweeted back
      almost at once: "You really are a gratuitously unpleasant man". To this
      Dawkins replied "Actually no. Just frank. You'd ridicule palpably
      absurd beliefs of any other kind. Why make an exception for religion?"
      "You are gratuitously unpleasant; I am just frank" comes straight out of the Yes Minister catechism of irregular verbs.
      But it gets better. Dawkins continues:
      "A believes in fairies. B believes in winged horses. Criticise A and
      you're rational. Criticise B and you're a bigoted racist Islamophobe."
      It is of course horribly unfair to call Dawkins a bigoted racist
      Islamophobe. Anyone who follows him knows he is an equal opportunities
      bigot who is opposed to Christians of every colour as well.
      But if
      you will tweet, as he has previously done, that "I have often said that
      Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today", then us
      inferior, less rational types can easily suppose that he means what he
      says, and that therefore he does think that Muslims, especially
      proselytising ones like Mehdi Hasan, are spreading evil and should not
      be employed by respectable magazines.
      Of course Dawkins would
      probably deny with complete sincerity that this is what he means – until
      the next time he says it. This doesn't make him unusually hypocritical.
      It just means that he thinks the same way as people who believe stories
      that are differently ridiculous to his – that the twelfth imam will return, or that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse.