Mohammed Was Not a Divinely Inspired Prophet and There Is No Allah
February 9, 2012
I know for many who read this blog, this assertion is hardly startling, but it is blasphemous, at least from an Islamic perspective. In fact, it’s probably the simplest, most direct blasphemous utterance one can make regarding Islam since it denies the central tenet of that faith. I thought today would be an especially appropriate day to make this assertion in light of the troubles encountered by the journalist Hamza Kashgari in Saudi Arabia.
It appears that Kashgari has had to flee his country after Kashgari mused in a series of tweets about what his interaction with Mohammed would be were he to meet Mohammed “man-to-man.” These tweets emphasizing the human nature of Mohammed were too much for many of the faithful. They responded with tweets of their own—over 30,000— almost all of them harshly critical of Kashgari and many calling for his death.
Fortunately, in much of the West, one can deny the truth of the claims made by various religions without too many repercussions—although that may depend on the setting. But we shouldn’t take this right for granted. There are those who want to muzzle free expression to avoid “offense” against those with religious sensibilities. Indeed, the organization One Law for All is holding a rally in London on February 11 to protest recent efforts to suppress criticism of religion.
But, of course, it’s in the countries outside of Europe and North America, in particular, the Islamic world, where the greatest threats to free expression can be found. The most innocent comments about Mohammed can result in severe punishment, either through official sanctions or mob action.
We need to continue to protest this unacceptable suppression of the fundamental rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. And today I can’t think of a better way to do it then to state clearly and unambiguously that Islam is based on false beliefs. Spread the word: Mohammed was not a divinely inspired prophet and there is no Allah.
#1 SimonSays on Thursday February 09, 2012 at 11:59am
While I agree with the sentiment 100% I know I’ll sound like a concern troll here: the likelihood that a blog post like this will get past the internet censors in Saudi Arabia is minimal. It would seem to me that if we want to do something about suppression of free expression in Saudi Arabia as opposed to talking about it among ourselves, then we should be a little more creative in our activism.
So for example, the censorship software that the Saudi government is using is sold by McAfee-a US company. Why not go after them? They’re arguably enablers of this behavior and make a huge amount of money in the process. Unlike the Saudi people US consumers can actually access such a complaint where it be made.
#2 gray1 on Friday February 10, 2012 at 9:20pm
Whatever happened to “When in Rome, do as Romans do?” Someone choses to go where the lives of the people are totally wrapped up in their religion and basically poo poos in the middle of their sacred street while aready knowing what the local laws say about such behaviour? That is not only very rude and very wrong but it is also very stupid. To call it “free expression” in a land for which there are no rights under the law for such behaviour is also in error. It is not “free” but will be rightly paid for under the already long prescribed terms.
It doesn’t matter that one does not agree with their laws, what matters is that their laws are what these people live under and when in “Rome” one should be wise enough to also kneel at least for the sake of the king’s command or be prepared to suffer the consequences. Christians who historically did such are called martyrs. Are we now prepared to follow suit for a cause of disbelief as opposed to one of belief? I suspect not.
The Saudis could buy McAfee with their accountant’s rounding errors. Go ahead, make their day. Meanwhile, feel free to continue poo pooing in your own street where apparently it’s quite legal.
#3 Observe26 (Guest) on Saturday February 18, 2012 at 7:47pm
The bald statement from the five-paragraph article, repeated as the headline, Mohammed Was Not a Divinely Inspired Prophet and There Is No Allah, is unsupported. Nor does it reference an essay which does make the case. As such, it is empty provocation, about as far from a Christopher Hitchens essay as one could imagine. If the author is going to pretend to be entitled to the position his title and C.V. claims, then he owes his readers the intellectual effort to make the case the statement should be summarizing.