It’s time to talk about Islam – part 1
And by this statement, I don’t mean feed the public and regressive left the usual stale meal of ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. The phrase is sick, tired, and factually wrong. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. But doing so would offend the Muslims. It is acceptable to not only lie blatantly and disregard facts and deceive entire nations of people into believing this. But it’s not acceptable for me to point towards violent verses in the Qua’ran such as 4:89, 9:5 that aren’t inherently peaceful at all. I would be deemed an Islamophobe , a racist , a bigot, a bitter atheist, a mentally unstable woman who is projecting her personal traumas. They would rather slander an individual , than allow a window of thought to appear; maybe Islam isn’t totally peaceful after all.
In the words of Ben Sharpio, facts don’t care about your feelings. It is a FACT if Muhammad existed today and married a 6 years old child at the age of 51, he would be arrested and rightly branded a paedophile. It is a FACT by western standards today, Muhammad is a paedophile. Surely it makes sense to the mind a man who at 54 has sex with a 9 year old child is a paedophile? Most Muslims would agree with this declaration. But substitute the name Muhammad in, there is an outcry. It seems to be a common theme in religions, evil is condemned, except when connected to the divine. Then it is revered as the purest thing on earth. Divinity seems to allow abhorrence.
I am a big believer in total freedom of speech. I believe every human, regardless of semantics, has the fundamental right to speak. Regardless if it offends or not. Unfortunately, free speech is now relegated to the unfortunate fact: it’s only free speech if you’re saying what they want to hear. Free speech has been capitalised into a simultaneously appealing and an important arsenal of verbal war and varying agendas. It seems to be employed only to engineer purposely created friction, or to blindly appease the masses. Freedom of speech, the REAL meaning of this should be reclaimed. Freedom of speech should be (as per the wonderful Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s definition) ‘the bedrock to Liberty and a free society. And yes, it includes the right to blaspheme and offend’.
But that will no doubt be seen as offensive, which begs the question. How can you claim to be liberal or belong to a liberal country/ society when it is drowning in a mingled sea of concealment, lies and self hypocrisy? I am not saying ad hominem attacks should be routinely employed to make a point; I’m saying let elegantly constructed arguments and facts prevail over public – masses false assurances. Every ideology should be subjected to rational criticism, dissected on whatever scale. Especially such a historical and large scale ideology like a religion. More so than smaller scale ones. To the rational mind, a huge ideology that influences so many people and countries in the world, should 100 percent be analysed throughly.
We have no problem condemning the Nazi or the KKK ideology. There is no societal outcry at the tonnes of criticism launched at this particularly repulsive idea. I’d like to ask the reader, the main reason why we reject such aforementioned ideologies is because of the oceans of human suffering and torture inflicted. We recognise the fact these men were brainwashed by the guise of an influential man, Adolf Hitler. They were succumbed to a detrimental political ideology that started off relatively benign, yet with the sweet scent of power, grew to be the real life depiction of a monsters dreams. Yet he firmly believed as he issued these rules, that they were for the greater good. A false sense of supremacy was embedded into this man. He was not only a warlord, he was a prominent political figure in his era. Yes, I am comparing Hitler to the so called ‘Prophet’ Muhammad.
Hitler and Muhammad : ethical and moral standards
By a personal ethical and moral standard , it can be argued Hitler outshines Muhammad in this regard. Hitler never married a child, he was monogamous, he never personally participated in any of the slaughters he ordered, he appreciated art and music, he never had sex slaves. Hitler never stoned women to death, ordered dogs killed, he was also vegetarian. Hitler and Muhammad both shared a hatred of Jews.
Muhamamd by comparison, married a 6 year old child when he was in his 50’s ( Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236, (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88, Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311, Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3309; see also 3310, (Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 2116, Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4915) and had sexual intercourse (rape) with the 9 year old child in question. Muhammad also endorsed rape of captured sex slaves in war and approved of having sex with them, Qua’ran 33:50, 33:51, 66:1-5, 4:24. Hadiths: Sahih al-Bukhari Book 62 Hadith 137,Sahih al-Bukhari Book 62 Hadith 136)
Muhammad was also a serial polygamist, abusing the normal rule in Islam that a man can only marry up to 4 women at the same time , (4:3). Rather suspiciously , all benevolent Allah allows Muhammad a privilege of being exempt from this rule (33:50). Muhammad had a rather voracious sexual appetite despite being an old man, as we see this exception from this rule benefited him and his *coughs* male organ considerably: sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268, Sahih al-Bukhari Book 62 Hadith 6, Sahih al-Bukhari Book 62 Hadith 7, Sahih al-Bukhari Book 62 Hadith 5). In short, Muhammad seems to come off as worse than Hitler in this section. I’ll most likely exhaust myself ploughing through his various delectable catalogue of evils in a later post. However, I digress.
Hitler and Muhammad were undoubtedly brutal dictators, with legions of cult members indoctrinated to the point of discarding any morals or semblance of what made them human. The main, crucial polarising difference between them is Hitler’s years of terror were fairly recently , compared to Muhammad’s occupation of some part of the far ago 7th century. Apart from era’s, hitler’s regime had more devastating effects, with brutal tortures, more crueler methods of cruelty. This is due to the factor of technology. It goes without saying 7th century did not have the instruments of war that were available to humans in the 1940’s. It goes without saying, if Muhammad did, he would have inflicted something far worse than those accounts of cases of evil, and I hold the opinion we would have something like ISIS today if Muhammad was around in recent times with his Bedouin 7th century degenerate morality.
I categorically state I have no Nazi sympathies, no afflictions. I am an ardent ally of Jews and am pro Israel and I despised the anti semitism found in Islam. To all those wanting to go down the bland path and would rather deflect the real issue by slandering me as a Jew hater, Hitler lover, Nazi ect, your words mean nothing. Drawing on factual parallels in a neutral piece of work does not declare your alliance lies with so and so. Another parallel I found is the reverence both parties of followers had for each respective figure.
Muhammad is always lovingly addressed in every Hadith as ‘the messenger of Allah, peace be upon him’ which is spoken as a mark of reverence, faintly reminiscent of the official title of Hitler ” Führer’.
To be continued