YOU CAN'T TAKE CHRIST OUT OF CHRISTIANITY
... but can you take Mohammed out of Islam?
Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, "the Story Of Mohammed - Islam Unveiled', http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au
I was asked recently whether any Islamic religious experts had tried to refute the claims in my book. Funnily enough, when I thought about it, there hasn’t been a single one. Considering how touchy they are about their religion you might think they would have something to say about such a high profile Amazon best seller.
My fiercest critics have always been Western academics and intellectuals. They get really ticked off about me and my views and are quite personal with their accusations. “This man is no scholar!” they roar. “This book doesn’t follow our conventions!” they scream.
And fair enough too. I am no scholar and don’t follow all of their conventions. I think that is a major reason why the book has been so popular.
Their conventions insist that any criticism of non-Western cultures (and especially Islam) must be “balanced” by showing a good side. If there isn’t a good side you have to invent one (or find something nice which is irrelevant and pretend that it isn’t).
While they resent me for writing this book, I resented them for not writing it. When I started ten years ago there wasn’t an academic in sight. All they could do was sing the praises of Islam. It was one of the “Great Abrahamic faiths” which had “given so much to the world.”
Anyone who dared to question this fantasy was torn to pieces with accusations of racism, ignorance and xenophobia.
Finally however, things are starting to change. Some academics are actually starting to admit that there may be some problems with Islam (no s#*t Sherlock!). They are now combining their collective wisdom and starting to come up with solutions to “the problem”.
Sam Harris is “an atheist, author and neuroscientist,” and Maajid Nawaz is a former Islamist member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Together, they have co-written a book called Islam and the Future of Tolerance: a Dialogue. News Limited recently published an article by this duo.
In it they argue for the need to “modernise” Islam by taking out the nasty bits. They reason that by doing so, “bad” Muslims won’t be able to use those evil bits to impose a version of violent Islam on the peaceful majority.
In short, this American scholar and his Islamic apostate (former Muslim) friend want to create a completely new version of Islam.
After embracing this new “nice” version of Islam, hardcore Jihadists and pious Muslims would abandon the authentic 1400 year-old Islam of their beloved prophet and open a florist shop in Soho or something (they were a bit light on details here).
“We have a task ahead of us” said Mr Harris with breathtaking understatement, “And that is to begin the process of adapting, reinterpreting our scriptures (whose scriptures?) for the modern day and age.”
I was reminded, for some reason, of a scene in the TV series “Red Dwarf”. The space ship comes under attack from a battle cruiser. The ship is being rocked by explosions and laser cannon.
“Quick!” shouts Cat, “Activate the deflector shields”. “A brilliant plan sir, if I may say so” says Kryten, the rather deadpan robot, “With just one small flaw; we don’t have any deflector shields!”
There are a number of small flaws in this plan to reform Islam. For the sake of brevity, I’ll just outline a few of the more catastrophic.
Let’s start with the idea of altering the Koran. It is believed by Muslims that a copy of the Koran resides on a table in Heaven.
This copy of the Koran is known as “The Mother of the Book.” All Korans on Earth are carbon copies of this heavenly blueprint.
Because of this, not one single word may be changed. To do so would render it incompatible with the original.
Several chapters of the Koran start with three Arabic letters and no one has the foggiest clue why. The official Koran of Saudi Arabia simply states that “only Allah knows.”
The current version of the Koran was assembled by Zaid, the private secretary of the third Caliph Omar. How he knew the exact contents of “The Mother of the Book” remains a mystery.
According to the legend however, he then burned all other versions of the Koran and no one complained about it. This is hardly surprising given the temperament of his boss, Omar.
Omar was a man for whom tough love meant beating his own son to death for drunkenness. General consensus suggests that the Koran has been pretty much in its current form from that time to this.
Today, the idea of changing the Koran would be considered heresy by most Muslims. Under Sharia Law, heresy carries a suspended sentence. If they can’t find anything to suspend you from however, they will usually saw your head off and spit down your neck.
To change the Koran today, I believe we would need to do pretty much what Omar did. In other words, we would need to burn every current copy of the Koran and delete every electronic copy.
Then we would need to track down the millions of Muslims who have learned to recite all of (or even part of) the Koran and assemble them in a secure facility somewhere.
After that, we just invent one of those memory erasers from the movie Men in Black and bingo! Problem solved.
How do you think that idea would go down in the Islamic world? Like a hot dog stand at the Kaaba I would imagine.
But let’s assume we can persuade the entire Muslim world to agree peaceably to this outrage and move on to the next part of the scheme.
Mr Harris complains that Mohammed is venerated by Muslims. This is despite the fact that he was a warlord, similar to the people running the Islamic State.
He then goes on to say, “That’s a very inconvenient fact that we have to confront head on and find some way to disavow.”
It’s great to see that someone in the establishment finally seems ready to admit that this is a fact. Now they think that they just need to find a way to disavow it.
Fortunately, academics and leftists have had plenty of practice at disavowing facts lately; certainly when it comes to the facts about Islam. They have also had great success in their efforts to re-write or re-interpret Western history.
It may come as a shock to them therefore, to find that Muslims are rather less receptive to the idea of having their own history re-written.
I suspect that simply labelling critics as ‘ignorant racists’ or ‘dangerous right wing fanatics' won’t be quite as effective with Muslims as it has been with Western audiences.
This is likely to be a source of considerable disappointment to left leaning academics. I’m sure they feel that the Jihadists owe them big time.
Academics have after all, been incredibly supportive of the Jihadists. They have assisted with dismantling our borders and freedom of speech; not to mention mass immigration, mosque construction and genocide of the Jews etc. Surely re-writing the Islamic scriptures is the least the Jihadists could do to repay them.
Something tells me that these left leaning academics are about to embark on a steep learning curve regarding the Islamic concept of gratitude to infidels.
The whole idea of taking Mohammed out of Islam is just laughable anyway. Once you do that there isn’t much left.
Just a few garbled Bible stories and an unpredictable God, who at his best views us as slaves and at worst as victims he has created for his own sadistic pleasure.Islam came to the world solely through Mohammed. The whole Koran was revealed to him alone.
Much of it is concerned with the events of his life.
It is a core Islamic belief that Mohammed is the last Prophet of Allah and no others will follow. The tales of other prophets are brought to believers only through Mohammed’s retelling. So once again I ask, what do we have left if we take Mohammed out of Islam?
Even supposing that you could somehow salvage something of value, where would that leave Sharia law?
In surveys, a large percentage of Muslims, even in the West, profess a desire to live under Sharia Law. This is laughable really. All Muslims must believe in Sharia. The word “Sharia” means “Way” or “Path” as in “the path to travel to be a Muslim.”
To be a Muslim without believing in the supremacy of Sharia is like being a Christian without believing in Jesus.
And what is the basis of Sharia? Mohammed and the Koran of course. Without these two, we would have to rely on “man-made laws” which true Muslims have always considered to be an abomination.
It is pointless to create a new version of Islam without the bad bits anyway. We already have one. It’s called Christianity.
Since the turn of this century, it is believed that millions of Muslims have left Islam and risked death by secretly converting.
During the same time frame, around a billion Muslim babies have been born. Do the math. Hoping for the mass conversion of Muslims is not the answer on its own.
This is especially true when most Christians have neither the courage, nor the faith in their own faith to call out Islam for what it really is.
Most seem content to slink into dhimmified subservience. They ignore even their own first commandment to, “Have no other God before Me.”
Surprisingly, having said all of that, I strongly believe that Islam is all but finished. It is like a vampire caught outdoors before the dawn. As the light of knowledge and understanding shine upon its secrets, it will crumble and fall, like a rotting corpse.
Islam has always relied on two methods to propagate itself, violence and deception. Violence isn’t going to work for much longer. Despite the love of violence which Islam encourages, Muslims aren’t very good at it.
The only way they successfully hurt others is by blowing themselves up in the process. It isn’t hard to deal with this kind of violence. Just make sure you don’t get too close to them. We have the tools to do that. They are called borders.
Once our leaders rediscover the purpose of these “barbarous relics” (as the Europeans seem to be doing) then Muslims will be restricted to killing each other.
Deception is a different matter of course. This is where Muslims have traditionally excelled themselves.
Unfortunately for them, that particular gravy train doesn’t run too well on the information superhighway. Even our academics and leaders are finally starting to realise what the rest of us have known for some time.
Islam is a mental prison. It is an ideology that is 1400 years past its use by date. We don’t need to salvage the good bits of Islam any more than we needed to salvage the good bits of Nazism or Stalinism.
What we really need, is for our academics to finally admit the truth about Islam and to rediscover the basis of our own incredible culture.
Once they can do this, and articulate it clearly and confidently, Islam will fall in a heap. It can then be consigned, once and for all, to the dustbin of history. Barely a shot needs to be fired in the process.
As Sun Tsu told us 2500 years ago, “Know yourself; know your enemy, one hundred battles, one hundred victories.”
This war we are currently fighting is not against Muslims. Instead it is against the dhimmified Left and their champions in academia, politics, the media and our other institutions.
For years, this may have seemed like an exercise in futility. Now however, it looks as if we are starting to make some serious headway.
While I may not agree with the solution proposed by Harris and Nawaz, I still consider this “baby step” to be a giant leap in the right direction.
By finally admitting the truth, they open the way for debate on a realistic and workable solution to the challenge of Islam. For that, they have my gratitude.