Why I Am Not a Muslim? - Ibn Warraq

[Sebastiaan]

Heeft iemand dit boek al gelezen of kunnen bemachtigen?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... eview.html

[This review was originally published in the New Humanist, Bradlaugh House, 47 Theobald's Road, London, England WC1X 8SP. Reproduced with permission.]

In one of his early works the traditionalist writer Frithjof Schuon makes an acute observation about the mentality of Muslims: `The intellectual - and thereby the rational - foundation of Islam results in the average Muslim having a curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslim's powers of imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things'. (Stations of Wisdom). How true this is will strike anyone who has tried to have a rational discussion on religion with a Muslim born of Muslim parents and raise d in a Muslim culture.

However, that this situation does admit exceptions is proved by the author of the book under review. Ibn Warraq was born into a Muslim family and grew up in a country that now describes itself as an Islamic republic. His earliest memories are of his circumcision and first day at Quran school, and his family still consider themselves Muslims. He, however, now considers himself a secular humanist who believes that: `all religions are sick men's dreams, false - demonstrably false - and pernicious'.

Given such views, arrived at against such odds and expressed at such risk, the pusillanimous attitude of many Western intellectuals to the Rushdie affair is described with scorn:

The most infuriating and nauseating aspect of the Rushdie affair was the spate of articles and books written by Western apologists for Islam - journalists, scholars, fellow travellers, converts (some from communism) - who claimed to be speaking for Muslims. This is surely condescension of the worst kind, and it is untrue. Many courageous individuals from the Muslim world supported and continue to support Rushdie.
For Ibn Warraq support for Rushdie has to be seen as part of a larger war against the rise of `fundamentalist` Islam:

For those who regret not being alive in the 1930s to be able to show their commitment to a cause, there is, first, the Rushdie affair, and, second, the war that is taking place in Algeria, the Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a war whose principal victims are Muslims, Muslim women, Muslim intellectuals, writers, ordinary decent people. This book is part of my war effort.
Considering the number of Muslims now resident in Western countries this is a war towards which no one, who values critical thought, free speech and democracy, can afford to be indifferent.

This is not simply a matter of `the demonisation of Islam', but of simply and honestly looking facts in the face, something that Muslims and their supporters are notoriously incapable of doing. It can be predicted now that the main response of the Muslim community to this book will be to shout `Apostate', accuse the author of every kind of moral degeneracy, and leave the facts and arguments he adduces completely unaddressed.

These facts and arguments concern the wholly human origin of the Quran, the wholly tendentious and invented character of the hadith, the sexually-obsessed and anti-feminine nature of the sharia, the Arab empire spread by the sword and maintained by terror, the persecution of religious and intellectual minorities in that empire in the name of Islam, the incapacity of Muslims for any kind of critical or self-critical thought, and the abject intellectual and moral poverty of Islam compared to the modern secular West.

The amazing thing is that it has taken so long for such a book to appear and that it has been left to a non-Westerner to write it, since the material for its assembly has been around for anything up to a century. The mealy-mouthed and apologetic character of so much Western scholarship on Islam springs from the fact that many of these scholars, were, and are, believers, albeit in the rival creed of Christianity. While they might be willing to show Muhammad in a poor light compared to Jesus, they were not keen to press the non-historical and non-divine arguments too far, since they realised that such arguments could just as well be used against their own cherished beliefs. They preferred a complicity of intellectual dishonesty with the Muslims in the face of an increasingly skeptical and secular environment.

Perhaps the most important thing demonstrated by Ibn Warraq is that Islam is fundamentalist by nature, and not by some peculiar and aberrant recent development. All Muslims, not just the fanatics, believe that every word of the Quran is quite literally the word of God, absolutely and unquestionably true for all times, places, and people, and practically the same goes for the hadith and the sharia. Anyone who wishes to argue that the fanatics' interpretation of these elements is wrong and that a far more `liberal' interpretation can be made and that that is the real Islam, have really only their own tastes and inclinations to support them. There is no Pope in Islam, nor any Councils with authority to impose a Creed. The fanatic who thinks that all unbelievers should be killed has just as much authority as the Sufi who thinks that all religions are true and that even atheists go to heaven. Both parties could adduce Quranic texts and hadith to support their positions, and both would be drawing, in their own minds, upon the immutable word of God. As Ibn Warraq observes: `Even if we concede that Muslim conservatives have interpreted the sharia in their own way, what gives us the right to say that their interpretation is the inauthentic one and that of the liberal Muslims, authentic? Who is going to decide what is authentic Islam?'

With regard to so-called liberal Islam this manifests in the West chiefly in the form of `Sufism or Islamic Mysticism'. the title of Chapter 12. Unfortunately, this is the shortest chapter in the book, a mere six pages, and has the appearance of an afterthought, since Sufism is only really dealt with in the first two pages and there inadequately. This is unfortunate because Sufism has been taken up by many Western intellectuals for whom real Islam is Sufism, and real Sufism is the Sufism of Ibn Arabi. This is in fact a ludicrous position, since it amounts to saying that real Islam is a minority view within a minority view, a view, moreover, that for most of the history of Islam has been suspected of heresy. What is needed with regard to Sufism is an in-depth critique of the metaphysics of Ibn Arabi as expounded in the works of such contemporary scholars as William Chittick and Michel Chodkiewicz, together with a sociological survey of the circus that surrounds such contemporary Sufis as Sheikh Nazim al-Qubrusi; but that would amount to another book.

Another important achievement of Ibn Warraq is that he explodes the myth of Islamic tolerance, a myth largely invented by Jews and Western freethinkers as a stick with which to beat the Catholic Church. Islam was never a religion of tolerance and it is not tolerant by nature. Despite the way the apologists would like to depict it, Islam was spread by the sword and has been maintained by the sword throughout its history, not to mention the scourge and the cross. In truth it was the Arab empire that was spread by the sword and it is as an Arab empire that Islam is maintained to this day in the form of a religion largely invented to hold that empire together and subdue native populations. An unmitigated cultural disaster parading as God's will. Religious minorities were always second-class citizens in this empire and were only tolerated on sufferance and in abject deference to their Arab/Muslim masters; for polytheists and unbelievers there was no tolerance at all, it was conversion or death.

These repulsive characteristics are written into the Quran, the hadith and the sharia, and are an ineradicable feature of the religion. There is no way that Islam can reform itself and remain Islam, no way it can ever be made compatible with pluralism, free speech, critical thought and democracy. Anyone convinced they already possess the truth have no need for such things. Although Muslims resident in non-Muslim countries clamour for every kind of indulgence for their own beliefs and customs, there can be no doubt that given any kind of power they would impose their own beliefs and eliminate all difference. In short, as Ibn Warraq describes it in his Dedication, Islam is religious fascism, and it is only a feeble-minded political correctness that prevents it from being recognised as such.

Finally, we should note two further important points made by Ibn Warraq. First, that Islam never really encouraged science, if by science we mean `disinterested enquiry'. What Islam always meant by ' knowledge' was religious knowledge, anything else was deemed dangerous to the faith. All the real science that occurred under Islam occurred despite the religion not because of it. Second, how indebted the Muslim world has always been to the West, not only to the Greeks in the beginning, but particularly in modern times in knowledge of its own intellectual and cultural history.

These unpalatable, half realised home truths are manifest in the contemporary Muslim world in the form of a massive resentment and inferiority complex:

It is a depressing fact that during the Gulf War almost every single Muslim and Arab intellectual sympathized with Saddam Hussein, because, we are told, `he stood up to the West'. In this explanation is summed up all sense of Islamic failure, and feelings of inferiority vis-a-vis the West. The Muslim world must be in a dire way if it sees hope in a tyrant who has murdered literally thousands of his own countrymen.
Indeed, and a Westerner can hardly imagine the courage it must take for Ibn Warraq to say as much.

The problem with a book such as this is that it will most likely never reach those most in need of it. That is to say young people in general and young Muslims in particular, those whose minds have not already been closed by fanaticism. How many libraries will stock it, or dare to stock it if they knew its contents? A hardback at over twenty pounds, published by an American publisher, is not likely to find its way on to high-street book shelves alongside all those uncritical, paperback apologies for Islam that seem to be appearing in ever increasing numbers. What is needed is more books like Ibn Warraq's, published by British publishers, at reasonable prices and with good distribution. But dare they do it?

A minor fault that could be corrected in future editions is that several important books and authors mentioned in text and notes fail to appear in the bibliography.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hadith. A tradition of the sayings or practice of the Prophet. One of the main sources of Islamic law.

Sharia. Islamic law consisting of the teachings of the Quran, the sunna of the prophet which is incorporated in the recognized traditions; the consensus of the scholars of the orthodox community; the method of reasoning by analogy.

Sunna. Properly, a custom or practice, and later narrowed down to the practice of the Prophet or a tradition recording the same.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/not_muslim.htm
Turning away from Mecca by Antony Flew

The Salisbury Review Spring 1996

(Why I am not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1995 $25.99. (UK Agent, 10 Crescent View, Loughton, IG10 4PZ).) (This review was published in The Salisbury Review, Spring 1996. The quarterly is published from London) This book was written by a man who was raised in a totally Muslim environment in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. But he has since moved to one of the NATO states which have since World War II been accepting mass immigrations from such countries. Why I am not a Muslim is apparently the first book of its kind to have appeared in the English language.

Ibn Warraq arranges his abundant materials on no obvious principles. He begins with a chapter entitled 'The Rushdie Affair', which deals mainly with the maltreatment of dissidents within the Islamic world and the failure of so many Western Islamicists to adopt a properly critical approach to their subject. This is followed by four chapters on 'The Origins of Islam', 'The Problems of Sources', 'Muhammad and His Message' and 'The Koran'. Then, when we might have expected to go on to the development of the Hadith and the Sharia, we have instead two chapters on 'The Totalitarian Nature of Islam' and 'Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?' After that we have seven chapters on such various Islamic topics as 'Sufism or Islamic Mysticism' and 'Taboos: Wine, Pigs and Homosexuality' before reaching a 'Final Assessment of Muhammad' and a final chapter on 'Islam in the West'.

The pseudonymous author makes no pretensions to being himself a professional Islamicist. But all his materials about the doctrines and history of Islam are drawn from the works of Western scholars and so - as I am assured by one of them - we can take the book to be factually reliable. It does, therefore constitute an invaluable compilation. Unlike professional Islamicists who are alive and working today, this author is not afflicted with inhibitions from offending either Muslim friends or Muslim regimes.

Although he does make the crucial point that all true Muslims are as such fundamentalists, and that this term should not be applied only to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his like (p. 11) he does not either make it adequately or insist upon it consistently. The term 'fundamentalist', which was coined in 1920, derives from the title of a series of tracts - The Fundamentals published in the United States from 1910 to 1915. It has since been implicitly defined as meaning a person who believes that, since The Bible is the Word of God, every proposition in it must be true; a belief which, notoriously, is taken to commit fundamentalist Christians to defending the historicity of the accounts of the creation of the Universe given in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Note from webmaster on the term "fundamentalist." While it is true that a Christian "fundamentalist" believes as he says, the meaning today is very different. It usually implies carrying that belief system into civil law and using government force, something even many devout Christians oppose. See my article Christian Fundamentalism Exposed. As an American, I have no problem with the term as Warrag uses it. Muslims have never learned to separate Mosque and state.

[Sebastiaan]

de autheur van heeft na 11 september nog het volgende geschreven:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/not_muslim.htm

STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY

Ibn Warraq is the author of Why I Am Not A Muslim

Given the stupefying enormity of the acts of barbarism of 11 September, moral outrage is appropriate and justified, as are demands for punishment. But a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all those perceived as "Muslims" or Arabs. Not all Muslims or all Arabs are terrorists. Nor are they implicated in the horrendous events of Tuesday. Police protection for individual Muslims, mosques and other institutions must be increased.

However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday is to wilfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take seriously the Islamic component. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War against all infidels.

Jihad is "a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet]. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims"[1].

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar- al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

We read (IX. 5-6):"Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them";

IV.76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of God";

VIII.39-42: "Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's."

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: "Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward."

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur'an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran- >XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that- >XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142

It is surely time for us who live in the West and enjoy freedom of expression to examine unflinchingly and unapologetically the tenets of these fanatics, including the Qur'an which divinely sanctions violence. We should unapologetically examine the life of the Prophet, who was not above political assassinations, and who was responsible for the massacre of the Jews.

"Ah, but you are confusing Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. The Real Islam has nothing to do with violence," apologists of Islam argue.

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur'an, the Sunna, and the Hadith – Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so- called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system. Islamism accounts for the anti-American hatred to be found in places far from the Arab-Israeli conflict, like Nigeria and Afghanistan, demonstrating that the Middle East conflict cannot legitimately be used to explain this phenomenon called Islamism. A Palestinian involved in the WTC bombings would be seen as a martyr to the Palestinian cause, but even more as a martyr to Islam.

"Ah, but Islamic fundamentalism is like any other kind of fundamentalism, one must not demonise it. It is the result of political, social grievances. It must be explained in terms of economics and not religion," continue the apologists of Islam.

There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any other kind of modern fundamentalism. It is true that Hindu, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists have been responsible for acts of violence, but these have been confined to particular countries and regions. Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the entire world to the all-embracing Shari'a, Islamic Law, a fascist system of dictates designed to control every single act of all individuals. Nor do Hindus or Jews seek to convert the world to their religion. Christians do indulge in proselytism but no longer use acts of violence or international terrorism to achieve their aims.

Only Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable in the drive to world hegemony. Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world.

Islamic fundamentalists recruit among Muslim populations, they appeal to Islamic religious symbols, and they motivate their recruits with Islamic doctrine derived from the Qur'an. Economic poverty alone cannot explain the phenomenon of Islamism. Poverty in Brazil or Mexico has not resulted in Christian fundamentalist acts of international terror. Islamists are against what they see as western materialism itself. Their choice is clear: Islam or jahiliyya. The latter term is redefined to mean modern-style jahiliyya of modern, democratic, industrialised societies of Europe and America, where man is under the dominion of man rather than Allah. They totally reject the values of the West, which they feel are poisoning Islamic culture. So, it is not just a question of economics, but of an entirely different worldview, which they wish to impose on the whole world. Sayyid Qutb, the very influential Egyptian Muslim thinker, said that "dominion should be reverted to Allah alone, namely to Islam, that holistic system He conferred upon men. An all-out offensive, a jihad, should be waged against modernity so that this moral rearmament could take place. The ultimate objective is to re- establish the Kingdom of Allah upon earth..."[2]

It is surely time for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted. I should like to see them do three things:

1. All moderate Muslims should unequivocally denounce this barbarism, should condemn it for what it is: the butchery of innocent people.

2.All moderate Muslim citizens of the United States should proclaim the ir Americanness, their patriotism, and their solidarity with the families of the victims. They should show their pride in their country by giving blood and other aid to victims and their families.

3. All moderate Muslims should take this opportunity to examine the tenets of their faith; should look at the Qur'an, recognize its role in the instigation of religious violence, and see it for what it is, a problematical human document reflecting 7th or perhaps 8th Century values which the West has largely outgrown.

While it should not be too difficult for moderate Muslims to accept the need to denounce the violence of Terrorist Tuesday, I am not at all optimistic about their courage or willingness to proclaim their love for their chosen country, the USA, or examine the Qur'an critically.

Too many Muslims are taught from an early age that their first allegiance is to Islam. They are exhorted in sermons in mosques, and in books by such Muslim intellectuals as Dr Siddiqui of the Muslim Institute in London, that if the laws of the land conflict with any of the tenets of Islam, then they must break the laws of the infidels, and only follow the Law of God, the Shari'a, Islamic Law.

It is a remarkable fact that at the time of the Gulf War, a high proportion of Muslims living in the West supported Saddam Hussein. In the aftermath of the WTC terror, it is now clear from reports in the media that many Muslims, even those living in the West, see these acts of barbarism as acts of heroism; they give their unequivocal support to their hero, Usama bin Laden.

Few Muslims have shown themselves capable of scrutinising their sacred text rationally. Indeed any criticism of their religious tenets is taken as an insult to their faith, for which so many Muslims seem ready to kill (as in the Rushdie affair or the Taslima Nasreen affair). Muslims seem to be unaware that the research of western scholars concerning the existence of figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Joseph or the authorship of the Pentateuch applies directly to their belief system. Furthermore, it is surely totally irrational to continue to believe that the Qur'an is the word of God when the slightest amount of rational thought will reveal that the Qur'an contains words and passages addressed to God (e.g. VI.104; VI.114; XVII.1; XXVII.91; LXXXI.15-29; lxxxiv.16-19; etc.); or that it is full of historical errors and inconsistencies.

Respect for other cultures, for other values than our own, is a hallmark of a civilised society. But Multiculturalism is based on some fundamental misconceptions. First, there is the erroneous and sentimental belief that all cultures, deep down, have the same values; or, at least, if different, are equally worthy of respect. But the truth is that not all cultures have the same values, and not all values are worthy of respect. There is nothing sacrosanct about customs or cultural traditions: they can change under criticism. After all, the secularist values of the West are not much more than two hundred years old.

If these other values are destructive of our own cherished values, are we not justified in fighting them both by intellectual means, that is by reason and argument, and criticism, and by legal means, by making sure the laws and constitution of the country are respected by all? It becomes a duty to defend those values that we would live by. But here western intellectuals have sadly failed in defending western values, such as rationalism, social pluralism, human rights, the rule of law, representative government, individualism (in the sense that every individual counts, and no individual should be sacrificed for some utopian future collective end), freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, the rights of minorities, and so on..

Instead, the so-called experts on Islam in western universities, in the media, in the churches and even in government bureaus have become apologists for Islam. They bear some responsibility for creating an atmosphere little short of intellectual terrorism where any criticism of Islam is denounced as fascism, racism, or "orientalism." They bear some responsibility for lulling the public into thinking that "The Islamic Threat " is a myth. It is our duty to fight this intellectual terrorism. It is our duty to defend the values of liberal democracy.

One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe. One hopes that even now there is a legal way out in international courts of law. The situation is far more delicate and complex than a simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell out of all Arabs and Muslims but neither is it to pretend that Islam had nothing to do with it, for that would be to bury one's head in the Sands of Araby.

[1] T.Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, entry "Jihad"

[2] E.Sivan, Radical Islam, New haven, 1985, p.25.

[Devious]

Dat is het boek van Ibn Warraq. Ik heb het boek gelezen, en het is zeer de moeite waard.
Hier staan nog meer boeken van Ibn Warraq beschreven, en via de links kom je meteen op de bestelpagina's van bol.com. http://www.freethinker.nl/Warraq.htm

Vriendelijke groet..

[Tatar]

Die man mag wel oppassen. Straks wordt er een medogenloze fatwa tegen hem uitgesproken door één of andere mafkees uit de woestijn.

[Sebastiaan]

Mischien vinden dan onnodig omdat ex moslims automatisch vogelvrij verklaat zijn indien ze kritiek op hun religie hebben. Daarnaast zou het alleen maar een hoop publicitiet opleveren voor zijn werk zodat zijn werk bekender wordt, iets wat ze natuurlijk willen verkopen

[collegavanerik]

Die man mag wel oppassen. Straks wordt er een medogenloze fatwa tegen hem uitgesproken door één of andere mafkees uit de woestijn.

ibn warraq is een schuilnaam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Warraq

The name Ibn Warraq (Arabic ابن وراق, most literally "son of a papermaker") is a pseudonym that has traditionally been adopted by dissident authors throughout the history of Islam.

[FonsV]

ibn warraq is een schuilnaam

Dat was Ayaan Hirsi Ali ook. En... 'al is de leugen nóg zo snel...'.

Fons.

[zaharah]

ik zal ook eens een boek gaan lezen van ibn warraq, heeft er iemand ervaring ......................... ik ga binnenkort toch op vakantie.

zaharah

[Devious]

ik zal ook eens een boek gaan lezen van ibn warraq, heeft er iemand ervaring ......................... ik ga binnenkort toch op vakantie.

Hier http://www.freethinker.nl/Warraq.htm vind je alle boeken van Ibn Warraq, als je daar op de links klikt dan kom je direct op de juiste pagina van bol.com.

Ik heb zelf 'Why I am not a muslim' gelezen, en het is zeer de moeite waard. Ibn Warraq is een pseudoniem, want hij wordt regelmatig met de dood bedreigd. In de inleiding vertelt hij wél iets over zijn islamitische opvoeding, waar hij in madrassa's niets anders deed dan het reciteren en het uit het hoofd leren van de Koran.

Vriendelijke groet.

[zaharah]

ik zal ook eens een boek gaan lezen van ibn warraq, heeft er iemand ervaring ......................... ik ga binnenkort toch op vakantie.

Hier http://www.freethinker.nl/Warraq.htm vind je alle boeken van Ibn Warraq, als je daar op de links klikt dan kom je direct op de juiste pagina van bol.com.

Ik heb zelf 'Why I am not a muslim' gelezen, en het is zeer de moeite waard. Ibn Warraq is een pseudoniem, want hij wordt regelmatig met de dood bedreigd. In de inleiding vertelt hij wél iets over zijn islamitische opvoeding, waar hij in madrassa's niets anders deed dan het reciteren en het uit het hoofd leren van de Koran.

Vriendelijke groet.

oke, ik deze gaan bestellen, lijkt me een goed plan..

zaharah

[sjun]

Het kan geen kwaad dergelijke lectuur naar meer talen te vertalen opdat er een belichtende discussie kan ontstaan over uitswassen van deze religie zonder nu meteen alle moslims in het verdomhoekje te stoppen.

[marc aka controle]

bekijk ook deze film eens. islam:what the west needs to know

http://www.mijneigenweblog.nl/weblog/en ... e_id=27608

[Devious]

Ik ben net een kwartiertje aan het kijken. Verdomd, wat een goede docu. Thanks!!!

[Devious]

bekijk ook deze film eens. islam:what the west needs to know

http://www.mijneigenweblog.nl/weblog/en ... e_id=27608

Ik denk dat ik hier maar even een nieuw topicje aan ga wijden. Deze documentaire is even een lange zit, maar is zeer de moeite waard. Arabisten, ex-moslims en historici doen een boekje open over de Islam, dat velen graag zouden willen sluiten.
Ik kan kreten als 'LA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH' of 'ALAAHU AKHBAR!' nu even niet meer verdragen. Vooral na een scene, zo'n beetje aan het einde van de film, waarin een hysterische imam oproept tot de oorlog tegen de ongelovigen, waarbij de barmhartige God van de vrede uiteraard tot vervelens toe wordt geprezen, maakte mij wel een beetje misselijk.

Grtz...

[insomnia]

beste islamdocu so far.....
brrrr